Preamble

The House—after the Adjournment on 6th June for the Whitsuntide Recess—met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

London Building Bill [Lords].

Southampton County Council (Bursledon Bridge) Bill [Lords].

Shoreham Harbour Bill [Lords] (Certified Bill).

Ascot District Gas and Electricity Bill [Lords].

Torquay and Paignton Traction Bill [Lords] (Certified Bill).

Bills to be read a Second time.

Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Accrington, Bognor Regis, and Newton Abbot) Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.

Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Order applicable),

Mt. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Land Drainage (Ouse) Provisional Order Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.

Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:

London County Council (Improvements) [Lords].

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Lochaber Water Power Bill [Lords].

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

London County Council (Money) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Epsom Rural District Council Bill [Lords],

Guildford Rural District Council Bill [Lord],

South Yorkshire and Derbyshire Gas Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Stoke-on-Trent Extension Bill,

As amended, to be considered upon Thursday.

West Bromwich Corporation Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Bootle Corporation Bill [Lords],

Brixham Gas and Electricity Bill [Lords],

Hastings Tramways Company (Trolley Vehicles) Bill [Lords],

Southport Corporation Bill [Lords],

Walsall Corporation Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now state the result of his further inquiries into the compulsion exercised in certain schools for the enrolment of schoolboys in officers training corps?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Sanders): The examination referred to by my right hon. Friend in his reply of 3rd June is not yet completed, and I am therefore unable to add to the reply which he then gave.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: While thanking my hon. Friend for his reply—and also congratulating him on
his new position—may I ask him if he will be kind enough to let me know when the inquiries are completed?

Mr. SANDERS: I will ask my right hon. Friend to let my hon. and gallant Friend know.

Oral Answers to Questions — WOODEN HUTS.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for War how many wooden huts built during the Crimean period are now used by the War Office and inhabited by troops and their families?

Mr. SANDERS: It is the policy of the War Department to replace wooden huts built during the Crimean War by permanent buildings as funds become available. There are very few of such huts, if any, now occupied by troops or their families, but I am unable to state the exact number without calling for information from the local military authorities. In the circumstances, I trust that the hon. and gallant Member will not press for the information.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Is a progressive policy being carried out, in providing better accommodation for troops? Is it the same policy as that which the last Government carried out, or is it a new policy?

Mr. SANDERS: I am unable to say what the policy of the late Government was—I was not able to follow it—but certainly it is the policy of the present Government to provide as good accommodation for the troops as possible.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: When these huts are replaced, are they replaced with huts of British timber?

Oral Answers to Questions — ST. KILDA (EVACUATION OF INHABITANTS).

Mr. RAMSAY: 5 and 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he has received a petition from the inhabitants of St. Kilda, praying to be removed from the island; and, if so, will he state when, how, and by whom the said petition was drafted and conveyed to the Scottish Office;
(2) if he intends to remove the present inhabitants of St. Kilda to some other part of Scotland; if so, where, how, and when does he intend to settle them;
and, should any such evacuation be determined, has he any intention of settling St. Kilda with inhabitants from other parts of Scotland?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Johnston): My right hon. Friend received a petition dated 10th May last from the inhabitants of St. Kilda praying that they might be removed from the island before winter. The petition which is signed by all householders now on the island, is attested by the missionary and the nurse, and reached him in ordinary course of post. I recently visted St. Kilda in order to make full inquiries on the spot, and on my report my right hon. Friend has decided to accede to the prayer of the petition. The arrangements for carrying out the evacuation and for placing the inhabitants are now receiving attention. There is not in view any scheme for the re-settlement of the island by my right hon. Friend.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Where will the money come from for this purpose; and will the sheep be removed from the island?

Mr. JOHNSTON: I would be greatly obliged if hon. Members would not press me for details at the moment. It is obvious that every endeavour will be made to sell the sheep and apply the proceeds to the cost of the evacuation, and any balance to the future subsistence of the islanders.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is it proposed to take these people away en masse or in families; and will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that these people have been accustomed to reside near the sea, and see to it that they are settled as near as possible to the sea?

Mr. JOHNSTON: Every care will be taken to meet the needs of the individual families, but it is obviously impossible to make a settlement en masse.

Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: How many people are there?

Mr. JOHNSTON: There are, in all, about 65 human beings.

Mr. RAMSAY: Does the hon. Gentleman say that there are 65 inhabitants? Then, in reference to the point which has been made by an hon. Member with regard to the sheep——

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot debate the matter now.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

PATENT LAW.

Mr. DAY: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes at an early date introducing legislation amending the law relating to patents?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): As I indicated in the House on 6th June, it is impossible to consider any amending legislation until the Committee dealing with this subject has reported.

Mr. DAY: Has any action been taken with a view to accelerating procedure in connection with this office and reducing the cost?

Mr. GRAHAM: Yes, Sir. I referred recently to additional staff appointed, I think, by examination, but in any event in this report, which may not be available for some months yet, it will be found that all these matters have been considered.

Mr. DAY: Have steps been taken to reduce the congestion which has existed for a long time?

Mr. GRAHAM: I should require notice of that question.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is the Committee considering a possible basis of co-operation with other countries so as to simplify the procedure, or has it confined itself to the procedure of the Patent Office in this country?

Mr. GRAHAM: That also is a question of which I should require notice. But I have no reason to doubt that the Committee will take a very comprehensive view of the subject.

FISCAL POLICY (MANCHESTER CHAMBER OF COMMERCE).

Mr. GRANVILLE GIBSON: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has received a report from the Manchester Chamber of Commerce on the result of the ballot recently taken of its members on the question as to whether they favoured the adoption of a protectionist policy as part of our fiscal system; and what action does he propose to take?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: No, Sir. I have received no such report.

Mr. GIBSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the vote was overwhelmingly in favour of Safeguarding and against Free Trade?

Mr. GRAHAM: I saw certain reports in the Press, but what the hon. Member asked me was whether I had received a report from the Manchester Chamber of Commerce. They have not communicated with me on this question.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: If we supply the right hon. Gentleman with information on the point, will he see that it is sent on to the Geneva Tariff Truce Conference?

Mr. GRAHAM: No. I think there would be no need to do that.

Mr. HANNON: In a case of this kind, and in instances in other cities where polls of this nature have been carried out and a decisive verdict has been given in favour of Safeguarding, are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman takes no notice of such decisions?

Mr. GRAHAM: Certainly I take notice of all these matters, but, after all, I should think that this ballot represents quite a small proportion of the aggregate trade of Manchester.

Mr. PHILIP OLIVER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the Manchester Chamber of Commerce passed a resolution in favour of Protection in the year 1888?

WAR MATERIAL (EXPORT).

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of licences he has granted during the last 12 months in connection with the exporting of munitions of war from this country, the nature of the munitions and the countries to which they were exported?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: During the period 1st June, 1929, to 31st May, 1930, 374 export licences were issued in respect of war material destined for 37 countries. As the details are rather long, I will, with the permission of the right hon. Member, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Will the details be given to the League of Nations?

Mr. GRAHAM: The details will be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and of course will be public property.

Following are the details:

List of Material.

(1) Cannon and other ordnance; carriages, mountings, cartridges and charges therefor.
(2) Machine guns and ammunition therefor.
(3) Rifles, revolvers, pistols and ammunition therefor.
(4) Machine gun mountings and interrupter gears.
(5) Projectiles.
(6) Submarine mines.
(7) Depth charges.
(8) Bombs and bombing apparatus.
(9) Fuses.
(10) Torpedoes and torpedo tubes.
(11) Tanks and light armoured vehicles.
(12) Component parts of articles in foregoing categories.
(13) Explosives, e.g., T.N.T., cordite, gunpowder, etc.



Countries of Destination.


Argentine.
Poland.


Belgium.
Portuguese East Africa.


Bolivia.



Brazil.
Portugal.


Chile.
Peru.


China.
Persia.


Czechoslovakia.
Portuguese East Indies.


Denmark.



Dutch East Indies.
Roumania.


Ecuador.
Russia.


Estonia.
Sweden.


Finland.
Spain.


France.
Siam.


Greece.
Switzerland.


Holland.
Turkey.


Italy.
Uruguay.


Japan.
United States of America.


Latvia.



Lithuania.
Venezuela.


Norway.
Yugoslavia.

COTTON INDUSTRY (IMPORT DUTIES, INDIA).

Mr. HACKING: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is yet able to form an opinion as to the effects of the increase in the Indian cotton import duties upon the Lancashire cotton industry; and whether he can state what they are?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: In view of the fact that there are a number of influences besides the tariff affecting our trade with India, I am afraid it is impossible to form a considered estimate of the effects of the increase in the import duties on our exports of cotton piece-goods to India.

Mr. HACKING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the trade itself is of the opinion that the import duty has a very serious effect?

Mr. GRAHAM: Yes, Sir, and as my right hon. Friend knows, I gave very great consideration to the matter, but in order to reply to his question it would be necessary that it should have a rather longer run, and there are, of course, the complications of the political difficulty to be considered.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration placing this point before the committee of inquiry into the cotton industry?

Mr. GRAHAM: I am afraid that particular point is too late, but the whole question of markets and the rest was undoubtedly considered by that committee.

Mr. HACKING: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has yet reached a decision regarding the publication of the report in connection with the Government inquiry into the cotton industry?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): No, Sir. His Majesty's Government have not yet had an opportunity of deciding regarding the Committee's recommendations.

Mr. HACKING: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be in a position to make a statement?

The PRIME MINISTER: We are really losing no time, but there are various things to be considered and various authorities to be consulted. As soon as I am in a position to make a statement it will be made.

Mr. HACKING: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the copies of this report are cheap, so that the poor cotton manufacturers may be able to afford to buy copies?

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: May I ask whether the report will be published after it has been considered?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is a matter which we are considering. In the compilation of this report, there was a good deal of freedom, a great deal of confidence, shown, and the question is whether it would be advisable in the interests of the industry itself that the report should be published.

Mr. COMPTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of publishing the report which was presented by the cotton industry to the late Government but which never reached this House?

IMPORTS (LABOUR STANDARDS).

Mr. ALBERY: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation calculated to prevent the dumping in this country of goods made by sweated labour, or whether it is their intention to rely solely on international negotiation?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The policy of the Government with regard to goods manufactured by sweated labour has been repeatedly stated, and I would refer the hon. Member in particular to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hacking) on 20th May.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: What is the position of the Government in regard to the importation of sweated goods?

Mr. ALBERY: Can the right hon. Gentleman report any progress in this matter in addition to the claim which he makes on behalf of the Government?

Mr. GRAHAM: No, Sir; I cannot add to previous statements on this matter. One of the fundamental differences between us is that hon. Members opposite wish prohibition or a tariff, and I am unable to accept either of those devices.

Several Hon. Members: rose
——

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot have a debate.

SHIPPING INDUSTRY (ARGENTINE TRADE).

Mr. HANNON: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has
considered the statement embodied in the Report of Lord d'Abernon's mission to South America on the subject of ocean-carrying trade between the Argentine and this country; and if, in view of the de-pressed condition of the shipping industry in Great Britain, he can indicate any action which would prevent the whole of the trade in grain being in the hands of Continental shippers and 60 per cent. of the trade in meat being handled by United States agencies?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: Meat from the Argentine to this country is carried almost exclusively in British ships and grain mainly in British ships. Last year over 77 per cent. of the tonnage entering United Kingdom ports with cargoes from the Argentine was British. The hon. Member will thus see that the statement on page 26 of the Report referred to, that as regards the River Plate cargo trade British shipping holds its place, is fully justified.

ARGENTINE TRADE AGREEMENT.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Argentine trade agreement has yet been approved by the Argentine Senate; and, if not, whether he can indicate by what date it will receive consideration by that body?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Are we to understand that this will not materialise?

Mr. GRAHAM: I trust that the House will not reach that conclusion. The delay, I understand, is due to certain constitutional difficulties belonging to the Argentine election; but I have every hope that this agreement will be completed.

Mr. SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking the matter seriously in hand, as it affects us greatly?

Mr. GRAHAM: The House may rest assured that everything is being done in connection with this agreement.

Mr. HURD: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed the strong feeling expressed in Canada as to the effect of this agreement on inter-Imperial relations?

TARIFFS.

Major COLVILLE: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has received information as to whether the Swedish Parliament has endorsed the action of the representatives of that country in signing the Tariff Truce Convention?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I have seen a press report to that effect, but have not yet received official confirmation.

BOOT AND SHOE TRADE (RUSSIAN ORDER).

Sir BASIL PETO: 60.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will, for the purpose of securing for Northampton the order for 3,000,000 pairs of footwear from the Soviet delegation, suggest to them that they should, if they have not already done so, take steps to raise a loan on their own credit in the City of London, to be current for the period required to enable them to make the purchase, and based on the security of Soviet exports of raw materials earmarked for the loan?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): I do not think that it would be appropriate for His Majesty's Government to offer suggestions to the Soviet Government as to the method of financing particular transactions in this country.

Sir B. PETO: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that boots and shoes wear out in the course of a single year, and therefore that any financial arrangements beyond that period are not in the nature of a proper commercial transaction?

Oral Answers to Questions — COMPANIES ACT.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of public companies which on 14th June were still in default in their obligation to lodge annual accounts and balance sheets?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The number of cases still outstanding on 14th June was 132.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take any action with regard to the defaulting companies?

Mr. GRAHAM: We had brought them down to 2,600 about the middle of February. Prosecutions started at the beginning of May, and the number has been very greatly reduced, but I ought to add that in that number there are many companies which are not really "companies" in the ordinary sense, but are little businesses under a one-man ownership and things of that kind.

Mr. THORNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman the same power to deal with these companies as the Registrar has to deal with trade unions which do not send in returns?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

LABOUR CONDITIONS, RUSSIA.

Sir F. HALL: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider the possibility of arranging for an independent commission of inquiry to visit Russia and to examine and report upon the labour conditions obtaining in the coal-mining industry; and if he will take steps to prohibit the importation of coal from Russia until the results of such inquiry are available?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part therefore does not arise.

Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the miners of America protested against the importation of anthracite from Russia into the United States, and is it not a fact that the reason why miners in this country have not protested is that the secretary of the Miners' Federation is so closely connected with the Third International?

Mr. W. J. BROWN: Are any steps being taken to publish a report of the Prince of Wales upon mining conditions in our own country?

Sir F. HALL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reply to my supplementary question?

ACCIDENTS.

Mr. MARDY-JONES: 22.
asked the Secretary for Mines the total number of deaths from accidents in coal mines in Great Britain for the year 1929; and what was the total number of deaths due to
accident under each of the following heads during 1929, and the percentage of each to the total death-roll, namely, explosions by firedamp, falls of roof and side, in shafts, and miscellaneous (underground) and miscellaneous (surface)?

Mr. PARKINSON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply, but, as the information is in tabular form, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:


Place or Cause of Accident.
Deaths from Accidents at Mines under the Coal Mines Act in 1929.


Number.
Percentage Proportion of Total Number of Deaths.




Per cent.


Explosions of Firedamp or Coal Dust.
34
3.2


Falls of Roof and Sides
581
54.0


Shaft Accidents
41
3.8


Haulage Accidents
220
20.4


Other Underground Accidents.
120
11.2


Surface Accidents
80
7.4


Total
1,076
100.0

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TRANSATLANTIC TELEPHONE SERVICE (CHARGES).

Mr. DAY: 24.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is now in a position to make a statement with reference to any further proposed reductions in the charges of the Transatlantic telephone service?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Lees-Smith): The charges for calls on the Transatlantic telephone service were reduced by £1 a minute on the 11th May. No further reduction is at present contemplated.

Captain GUNSTON: Since the reduction has there been a great increase in traffic?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: There has been a certain increase, but I cannot necessarily ascribe it to the reduction in the charge.

TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE WIRES AND POLES.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES (for Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES): 23.
asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience and danger to the public owing to the erection of telegraph and telephone poles at the side of narrow roads; and whether he will consider the desirability of taking steps to ensure that all telegraph and telephone wires shall be laid underground or that the poles should be fixed on the land adjoining the road?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: Representations have been made from time to time regarding danger from telegraph poles on public roads. Special care is taken when poles are erected to select positions involving no danger to the public; and when this condition cannot be met steps are taken with a view to securing sites on adjoining land. Sometimes poles become dangerous as a result of the cutting back of the grass verge in which they stand, and it is the practice in such cases to set the poles back. A larger proportion of the telegraph and telephone wires are already placed underground in this country than in any other, but financial considerations render it impracticable to dispense with all overhead plant, and I cannot forgo the right to place poles in roads where suitable sites can be found.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: Will the Postmaster-General say if he has received representations from a large number of rural authorities in Wales stating that the roads there are especially narrow, and that, as a consequence, there is great danger through the use of these poles; and will he take steps to meet that situation?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I have had representations from not a large number but from two or three authorities, and in North Wales special steps of a certain character have been taken.

Colonel ASHLEY: Where damage is done, who pays for the removal of the poles?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: The Post Office.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Could not the right hon. Gentleman do away with the posts on the main roads, and have all these telegraph and telephone lines put underground?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: Financial considerations make that quite impracticable.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 25.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has made any further examination into the case of the widows and orphans of ex-service officers and men who died as the result of wounds, but who married after their discharge from the Forces; if he is aware that the families of these men receive nothing from the State and the man's pension dies with him; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. F. O. Roberts): I cannot, I regret, add anything to the reply on the same subject which I gave to the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Annesley Somerville) on the 17th April last, and of which I am sending the hon. and gallant Member a copy.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the number of these cases is comparatively few, but that the hardship is very great indeed, and that in some cases widows are being left quite destitute, although their husbands have undoubtedly died as the results of war wounds; and will he not look into the matter again?

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

SITUATION.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will give the House the latest information he has as to the conditions in India?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): I am circulating a statement containing two appreciations of the situation by the Government of India for the weeks ending 7th and 14th June.

Mr. BROCKWAY: Has the result of the court-martial in the case of members of Indian forces who refused to fire upon their fellow countrymen yet been announced?

Mr. BENN: I have seen Press reports, but, if my hon. Friend wants a further answer, perhaps he will put down a question on the Paper.

Following is the statement:

Appreciation of the situation by the Government of India, for the week ending 7th June, 1930.

The following is our appreciation of the situation up to 7th June.

1. North-West Frontier Province: Tribal.—Afridi situation overshadowed everything else during past week and at one time events threatened to assume very serious complexion. Lashkar led by Said Badshah and other prominent Mullahs was known to have formed some three weeks ago near western end of Khajuri Plain. Subsequently further concentrations with standards collected in Upper Bara and began to move slowly towards the Peshawar District border. By 4th June, lashkar had reached point about 15 miles west of Bara Fort. Reported intention was to hold jirga, with Khalil and Mohmand tribes of District with a view to combined resistance to alleged Government oppression. On night of 4th-5th June, lashkar entered Peshawar District, and numerous isolated gangs, some of them numbering several hundreds, penetrated Khalil and Mohmand villages up to cantonment boundary. Khalils and Mohmand were incited to revolt and attack cantonment, but refused. Large part of lashkar appears thereupon to have retired westwards towards hills. Numerous gangs however remained scattered through Khalil and Mohmand country and in gardens south of Peshawar City. Trees were felled and culverts destroyed on Peshawar Bara road. On morning of 5th parties retiring across Khajuri plain were bombed from the air and Royal Air Force are reported to have inflicted heavy casualties. Simultaneously movable column marched out from Peshawar to clear country between Bara and Kohat Road. Drive was entirely successful and troops are reported to have inflicted severe casualties, operating in very difficult terrain. Details of losses suffered by Government Forces not yet available but a few casualties, as was inevitable in operations of this sort, are reported to have occurred. Careful search conducted on 6th June failed to discover any Afridi
stragglers in British territory and entire lashkar appears to have withdrawn from District.

In Malakand, parties of Utman Khel from Ambahar approached Peshawar District border north-west of Tangi village in the Charsadda Tahsil. These were joined by men of Pranghar and other villages just beyond District border. Air action was therefore taken against Pranghar after issue of usual ultimatum. Utman Khel lashkar is now reported to have taken up position in Jindai Khwar where air action has been taken against them at intervals during week. Haji of Turangzai and his son are still hovering on Mohmand border in hope of receiving support from Mohmands or of general rising in Peshawar District. Encampment has been bombed at intervals and lashkar accompanying Haji is reported to be short of supplies. Some contingents for this reason are reported to have left and gone home. Main body of Mohmand tribe continues to hold aloof.

In Waziristan, Madda Khel and Khiddar Khel Wazirs have paid in full fine inflicted on them for their unprovoked attack on Datta Khel post. Maliks who had surendered themselves as hostages have therefore been released and have departed to their homes to assist in controlling tribes. As reported in last week's summary, lashkar of Shabi Khel and Kikarai Mahsuds of Shaktu had collected to attack Sigai village. Villages from which lashkar had collected were given ultimatum and ordered to evacuate as Government proposed to retaliate if Sigai was molested. On night of 31st May, Sigai village was entered and partially burnt, whereupon air action was taken against the villages concerned. This was at once successful and lashkar appears now to have dispersed. Mahsuds otherwise are reported quiet. Wana Wazirs, nothing to report.

2. Internal.—Peshawar District.—On night of 3rd June, two motor lorries hired by Frontier Constabulary were ambushed while returning empty to Shabkadr Fort. Driver of one lorry was shot dead and lorry burnt. Driver of second lorry was badly wounded. As outrage occurred in Shabkadr village, Gigiani quarter of this village, which was proved to have been implicated,
was rounded up on 5th June and arrests effected. Otherwise there have been no incidents in Peshawar.

Peshawar City.—Unfortunate incident occurred on (the 31st of) May, when rifle was accidently discharged by Lance Corporal belonging to detachment on duty in City. No less than three persons were struck by bullet, two of them children who were killed. Crowds immediately collected and had to be dispersed. This was done without untoward incident, but later crowds reassembled and in one place attempted to snatch rifles from small detachment of troops marching through city who were compelled to fire in self-defence. Nine people are reported to have been killed and 18 wounded.

Kohat and Bannu Districts are quiet. On the 31st May, Police and Constabulary, supported by troops, entered Dera Ismail Khan City and effected certain necessary arrests. Crowds collected and had to be dispersed by lathi charge. Later police were subjected to heavy showers of bricks from house-tops, from which shots were also fired. Attacks were stopped by police firing about 50 rounds of buck shot at house-tops. One rioter on roof is reported to have received flesh wound. Troops and police remained in occupation of disaffected quarters of City till the 5th June, when pickets were withdrawn, and all is now reported quiet.

3. Mention was made last week of the communal riots at Rangoon and Dacca. At the former place the trouble subsided quicker than had been feared and, with the return to work of most of the labourers, conditions are now practically normal. The disorders at Dacca were brought under control early in the week, but they are likely to leave behind a legacy of ill-feeling and insecurity.

Except on the Frontier the week has been free from serious disturbances. A communal fight occurred in the Muttra District, due to the boycott of Muhammadan carters by Hindus; and Bengal has reported an attack on the police in a village in the Midnapore District, which necessitated firing. The comparative quiet is probably due more to the absence of incidents leading to clashes between the authorities and the people than to any appreciable change
of feeling in the towns, although reports received from several provinces, and in particular from the Punjab, indicate a slight lull in Congress activity and enthusiasm. There is reason to believe that the arrest of leaders is beginning to have some effect in certain provinces, but it cannot be assumed at present that the movement has reached its crest.

4. There have been several raids during the week on the salt works at Dharasana, in Gujerat, but the authorities have had little difficulty in dealing with them. The organisation of the raids has been half-hearted and the enthusiasm of the volunteers has been markedly less than on previous occasions. This week's proceedings attracted very few spectators and generally there has been a very poor response to the invitation of the Congress to regard Dharasana as an All-India Satyagraha. The failure is reported to have caused considerable despondency. On the other hand, the raids have been used for the most unscrupulous propaganda and every effort has been made to make capital out of the alleged brutalities of the police. In some cases volunteers who have received very slight injuries have been taken on stretchers in procession in neighbouring towns, and no opportunities have been lost to vilify the police and to advertise the alleged excesses of the authorities. A minimum of force has in fact been used and the police have behaved with restraint.

The weekly attack on the Wadala salt works, near Bombay was carried out on the 1st June and repulsed without any great difficulty. There was, however, trouble a day or two later among prisoners at Worli and a clash between them and the police resulted in a number of prisoners being hurt.

The monsoon will shortly bring to an end these mass raids on salt works. The organisers have achieved very little so far as the theft of salt is concerned but they have to some extent attained their object of rousing hostility towards Government and of encouraging public defiance of the law. In Bombay City there have been several processions during the week, and vigorous attempts have been made to obtain the adherence of Muhammadans and Parsis to the Movement.

5. There has been little change in the situation in Gujerat where the boycott of public servants continues. The campaign against the payment of land revenue does not appear to have made much progress during the week. The Ordinance dealing with instigation to the non-payment of certain dues, which was applied last week to the Bombay Presidency, has been extended to Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, Assam, the Punjab, and the North-West Frontier Province, in order to check incipient movements against the payment of Government dues. Outside Gujerat the movement has not got beyond the stage of instigation, but it may be anticipated that in several provinces vigorous efforts will be made to delude the rural population.

6. In last week's appreciation mention was made of opposition to the Congress programme of boycott of newspapers and to the methods of picketing employed on foreign cloth and other shops. This opposition tends to grow, and where, as in some places, it accompanied by increased activities on the part of picketers, the danger of disorder is enhanced. The Prevention of Intimidation Ordinance now extends to the provinces of Bombay, Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, Assam and the North West Frontier Province.

7. Poltical activity by Muhammadans on constitutional lines continues. Outside the Frontier Province the Muhammadans of Northern India are practically solid in their opposition to the Civil Disobedience Movement and many offers of service have been received from spiritual and political leaders and from large landowners. During the week His Excellency the Viceroy received a very representative deputation of Muhammadan landlords of the Punjab who, while giving expression of their political aspirations, assured His Excellency of their determination to support Government in the task of maintaining law and order. The steadfast adherence of the bulk of Muslim community to constitutional methods is a reassuring feature of the general situation..

Appreciation of the situation by the Government of India, for the week ending 14th June, 1930.

The following is our appreciation of the situation up to 14th June.

2. North-West Frontier Province (tribal).—Whole tribal trouble has from beginning been engineered from Peshawar and other centres in British territory by means of unscrupulous misrepresentations. Thus, immediately after occurrences of 23rd April, emissaries carrying baskets full of bloodstained clothing (in some cases procured with assistance of local butchers) and other tokens of alleged wholesale massacre, were despatched in all directions to tribal centres and homes of influential Mullahs. On re-establishment of full control in Peshawar City on 4th May this type of propaganda somewhat died down, but has later apparently to seine extent revived and has been producing further crop of troubles. Latest developments are as follows: On 9th June a hostile gang of trans-border tribesmen, appeared on the Northern border of the Hazara District, near Oghi, and attempted to enter. Their advance was prevented by Frontier Constabulary, to whose assistance two companies of Garhwalis and some pack artillery have since been sent. Situation in that neighbourhood appears to have been stabilised. Nawab of Amb provided contingent of 400 men to assist authorities.

In Malakand Agency there have been no further developments of importance, except that Utman Khel, of Shamozai, Barang and Asil Valleys, in small parties have crossed Swat River and assembled in upper part of Jindai Nulla on North border of Peshawar district, whence their armed parties have entered district in various directions and opened up communication with disaffected elements. Air action has been taken against them at intervals, but so far without decisive effect.

Mohmand situation has improved. Dissensions have broken out amongst Badshah Gul's party over his alleged misappropriation of funds believed to have been sent from Peshawar. Intensive bombing has also compelled Alingar Fakir, with his following, to return home, and latest news is that Badshah Gul's concentration, after interview with seven selected Mohmand Maliks of Peshawar District, is also dispersing.

Afridis.—Lashkar which penetrated Peshawar District were reported all back in their homes by 8th June, after sustaining losses estimated at 80 killed and about 100 to 150 wounded. Instance of
extent to which tribes are swayed by propaganda, and their credulity, is furnished by fact that one of main objects announced by lashkar was revenge on Government for numerous Afridis killed on 23rd April, whereas in point of fact, so far as can be ascertained, only one Afridi actually lost his life that day. Customary Friday jirga at Bagh on 13th was expected to be largely attended, when discussion would turn on further action, if any, to be taken against Government. Tribal hot-heads are described as being still very bitter against Government, and Elders and Maliks unable to control them.

Kohat.—Border agitation amongst Jowaki Hassan Khel and Pass Afridis has been reported, but has no marked effect as yet; same applies to Orakzais.

Waziristan still remains all quiet, but two parties of agitators described as Congress emissaries from Bannu side, numbering seven in all, are reported to have entered Shaktu and thence proceeded to Maidan, where they are endeavouring to organise collection of lashkars and advocating joint jirgas with Teri Khel Wazirs for concerted action against Government.

Internal.—Disarmament of disaffected villages and arrest of seditious leaders continues in various parts of Peshawar District, but there has been no material change in situation. That agitation is still at work is shown by continued attempts to hold seditious meetings at various centres. On other side, Charsadda Town reports holding of meeting 10th June, to prepare petition expressing loyalty to Government and condemning agitation. At Hawed, near Bannu, on same day dissension arose between anti-Government speakers and local Mullahs, and resulted in meeting breaking up in disorder.

Elsewhere, nothing to report.

3. The Muharram passed off quietly, except for clashes between Hindus and Muhammadans at Vellore in Madras Presidency, and at two or three villages in Kaira District of Gujerat.

4. There has been recrudescence of communal trouble at Dacca, but reports so far received do not indicate that this is serious.

In Midnapore District of Bengal, serious outbreaks of disorder have
occurred at four or five places during past fortnight, and have been characterised by attacks on police by mobs of considerable size. It was necessary to send a detachment of troops and reinforcements of police to District, but situation appears now to be under control. It is reported that attacks on police were directly due to instigation of Congress Volunteers.

5. On 12th June, Congress organisation in Bombay City defied order of authorities forbidding procession, and this led at two places to clash with police.

6. There have been no raids on salt works, and it may be assumed that no more will be attempted during the monsoon. Their suspension may be followed by greater activity in other directions, especially in picketing.

7. Further reports from several Provinces confirm fact mentioned in last week's appreciation, that there has been some lull in Congress activity and enthusiasm: this is most marked in Punjab, in Calcutta and in some districts in Madras. On other hand, there has been considerable activity in some areas to which movement has recently extended, in regard to campaign for non-payment of taxes.

There has been no development of any importance in Gujerat, but in parts of Bengal movement for non-payment of Chowkidari tax appears to be making some progress.

Attempts have been made to encourage defiance of Forest Laws in south of Bombay Presidency, and one case has been reported of wilful destruction of forest trees. For present, however, chief activities of Congress are directed to boycott of foreign goods and liquor shops. The invitation issued by All-India Congress Working Committee a month ago, to lawyers, to give up their profession, and to students, to desert their studies, has received little response.

8. An important meeting was held at Amritsar on 7th June, attended by representatives of various Sikh parties, when there was long discussion on unfortunate incident that occurred at Delhi on 6th May, in connection with Sisganj Gurdwara. Sharp differences of opinion were revealed, and moderate Sikhs eventually left meeting. The extremists have declared their intention of taking bands
to Delhi, with object of demonstrating before police station from which firing on Gurdwara took place. It is hoped, however, that wiser counsels may prevail.

9. During week, further meeting of All-India Congress Working Committee was concluded at Allahabad. The Resolutions included an appeal to country publicly to defy Press Ordinance, the Prevention of Intimidation Ordinance and Unlawful Instigation Ordinance; and, in particular, to extend campaign for non-payment of Land Revenue to certain areas, to intensify movement for non-payment of Chewkidari tax in areas where it has already started, and to start it in other areas. The Committee also urged people to carry on with redoubled vigour picketing of liquor shops and foreign cloth shops, and social boycott of Government servants. They made strong appeal to Muhammadans to join movement.

In regard to newspapers which have continued to appear in spite of arbitrary mandate of Congress Working Committee, modified their previous decision and abandoned proposal to picket those newspapers which have defied their order. The reason given for this change of policy was that other Congress activities afforded ample scope for picketing, but real reason was undoubtedly determination shown by several papers of Nationalist tendencies to resist what they regarded as an improper interference with their liberty of action.

The proceedings of Committee were generally characterised by disregard of disastrous consequences to country of pursuance of Civil Disobedience Movement; and by attempts, for purposes of propaganda, to place on Government the responsibility for events that are directly attributable to spirit of lawlessness which Congress have deliberately created and fostered. There are signs in some parts of country that, though Congress are in no way relaxing their efforts, misgivings increase regarding their aims and methods among many who were at first inclined to view Civil Disobedience Movement with toleration, if not with approval. The active opposition of those who frankly disapprove of it is steadily increasing, with belief that it is doomed to failure.

RIFLE DISCHARGE, PESHAWAR.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for India
whether the inquiry has been completed into the circumstances in which the discharge of a soldier's rifle from the Kabuli Gate at Peshawar on 31st May last led to the wounding of the wife of an Indian in Government employment and the death of his two children; and if he can state what were the circumstances?

Mr. BENN: I have no official report of the trial of the lance-corporal, but as stated in the Press, it has resulted in his conviction and sentence to 18 months' imprisonment. According to the telegram I received at the time, the discharge of the rifle was accidental, while the lance-corporal was engaged in cleaning it.

Oral Answers to Questions — PORT LABOUR (DECASUALISATION).

Mr. WEST RUSSELL: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour the composition of the new Committee that has been appointed to inquire into the problem of decasualising port labour; and in what way its work will differ from that of a similar Committee set up in 1924?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson): With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement of the membership and terms of reference to this Committee. The object is to carry a step further the work done by the earlier Committee which was set up by the industry itself in 1924 with rather narrower terms of reference. All of the members of that Committee will serve on the new body, and my right hon. Friend is particularly glad that the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) has been able to continue as Chairman.

Following is the statement

The composition of the new Port Labour Committee is as follows:

Chairman:

The Rt. Hon. Sir Donald Maclean, K.B.E., LL.D., M.P.

Employers' Side.

Sir Alfred Booth, Bart.,
Charles Cullen, Esq.,
C. F. Leach, Esq.,
F. J. Leathers, Esq.,
James Spencer, Esq.,

and one other member, yet to be appointed.

Workers' Side.

Ernest Bevin, Esq.
T. W. Condon, Esq.
D. Hillman, Esq.
D. Milford, Esq.
James Sexton, Esq., C.B.E., M.P.
Benjamin Tillett, Esq., M.P.

Secretary:

Mr. L. G. Bullock (Ministry of Labour).

The terms of reference are:
To inquire into employment and unemployment in the port transport services in Great Britain and to make recommendations thereon, with special reference to decasualisation and the administration of the unemployment insurance scheme in its application to port transport workers.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY CHARGES, BERMONDSEY.

Mr. G. GIBSON: 35.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that a number of leather factories in Bermondsey have closed recently due to the heavy costs of production in that area; that the charges for electricity for power for large consumers in that borough are nearly three times as great as in some other London areas; and if he will have an investigation made with a view to reducing the burdens on manufacturers using electricity in that area?

Mr. PARKINSON: I have been asked to reply. My hon. Friend is not aware of the circumstances referred to in the first part of this question. His information is to the effect that the average price charged for electricity supplied for power in Bermondsey is, in the case of one of the undertakers, slightly higher, in the case of the other, slightly lower than the average price charged in the London area. If, however, the hon. Member will give my hon. Friend further particulars he will look into the matter further.

Mr. GIBSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the charge for power in Bermondsey is 2d. a unit, while in the next parish of Camberwell it is less than 1d.?

Mr. PARKINSON: I will represent that to my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

RAILWAYS (LABOUR COST).

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 36.
asked the Minister of Transport the total cost of labour on British railways in 1913–14 and similarly the cost of labour in 1929; and to what extent the increased cost has affected freight and passenger charges?

Mr. PARKINSON: I have been asked to reply. From a return issued by the Board of Trade in 1915 it is estimated that the total amount of salaries and wages paid to the staffs of the railway companies in Great Britain in respect of the year 1913 was about £44,500,000, exclusive of the amounts paid to staffs employed at the companies' docks and certain other non-railway businesses. Figures for 1929 are not yet available; but according to the last railway companies (staff) return the total amount of salaries and wages paid by the railway companies in respect of all their businesses in 1928 was about £118,000,000. The hon. Member will Observe that the figure for 1928 includes the remuneration of certain staffs not covered by the return for 1913. With regard to the latter part of the question, as the increased costs borne by the railway companies are not confined to increases in salaries and wages, my hon. Friend is unable to give the information desired.

Colonel ASHLEY: Can the hon. Gentleman state how comparable staffs compare in the two periods? Has there been any increase or a decrease since 1914?

Mr. PARKINSON: I have not that information.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: In view of this immensely increased cost, does the Government think it desirable that some inquiry should be held as to the effect of this enormous expenditure—probably quite just expenditure—upon freight charges?

Mr. ARTHUR LAW: Will the Government appoint a Committee to investigate the condition of the people prior to 1914?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is another question.

ROAD CONSTRUCTION (RUBBER).

Sir GEORGE PENNY: 37.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the low price of rubber, its known durability and its sound-deadening properties, he will consider the possibility of making wider uses of this commodity and help employment in distressed areas by starting schemes of roadmaking made of this material?

Mr. PARKINSON: I have been asked to reply. I understand there has been a considerable reduction in the price of rubber paving blocks, but that the cost is still very high compared with other suitable paving materials. The choice of materials is primarily a matter for the highway authority concerned; but, in view of the higher initial cost of rubber my hon. Friend cannot urge its wider use in unemployment works.

Sir G. PENNY: Will the hon. Gentleman make representations to the Minister of Transport to consult the local authorities, in view of the admitted damage to buildings by vibration, to see whether this cannot be done in certain places in certain areas, and also on certain bridges where much damage is caused by vibration?

Mr. PARKINSON: I will convey that suggestion to my hon. Friend.

ROAD EXPENDITURE.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES (for Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES): 33.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will state, in reference to the sum of £4,000,000 approved for expenditure on unclassified roads, what proportion of this amount represents grants already made to local authorities; and what is the total expenditure contemplated within the present financial year in respect of contracts actually let or work commenced by local authorities?

Mr. LAWSON: I have been asked to reply. Since the 1st June, 1929, the Unemployment Grants Committee have approved for grant schemes in respect of unclassified roads estimated to cost approximately £4,747,000 which are being undertaken by local authorities for the relief of unemployment. It is estimated that of this sum about £3,500,000 represents the expenditure which will be incurred
in the present financial year in respect of work which has been already commenced or is due to commence during the year.

Colonel ASHLEY: Can the hon. Gentleman state what proportion of this large sum is found by the local authorities?

Mr. LAWSON: No, I cannot say.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES (for Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES): 34.
asked the Minister of Transport, in reference to the sum of £33,000,000 approved for expenditure on classified roads, what proportion of this amount represents grants already made to local authorities; and what is the total expenditure contemplated within the present financial year in respect of contracts actually let or work commenced by local authorities?

Mr. PARKINSON: I have been asked to reply. Out of the sum of £33,000,000 to which the hon. Member refers, grants have already been made from the Road Fund to schemes involving an estimated expenditure of approximately £13,500,000 for improvements of classified roads. These grants were made on the understanding that the works would be put in hand at an early date, but my hon. Friend is unable to state the proportion of the expenditure likely to be incurred during the present financial year.

Colonel ASHLEY: Can the hon. Member say how long this offer will remain open? We have already been told that the offer would be put into force without delay, and I would like to know how much longer it will remain open?

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: How much of this work has actually been started?

Mr. PARKINSON: I cannot say.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: I will put down another question on this point in a week's time.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

WHEAT STOCKS.

Mr. DAY: 38.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can state the estimated stock of wheat and wheat-flour, expressed as wheat, remaining on farms in England and Wales as at the 1st April, 1930?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): The estimated amount of wheat remaining on farms in England and Wales on 1st April, 1930, was 217,000 tons. So far as I am aware there are no stocks of wheat-flour on farms at any time of the year.

Mr. DAY: If I give my right hon. Friend notice, can he let me know the amounts?

Dr. ADDISON: I should think so.

GOVERNMENT POLICY.

Mr. ALBERY: 39.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can now make a statement on the Government's policy for the relief of agriculture?

Dr. ADDISON: No, Sir.

Mr. ALBERY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether his predecessor confided any agricultural policy to him on leaving office?

Mr. MACPHERSON: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can make any statement with regard to the proposed three party conference?

Dr. ADDISON: I think there is a question on the Order Paper on that point.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS.

Sir F. HALL: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state whether a permit to enter Great Britain has been issued to Herr Eberlein subsequent to the conviction and recommendation for deportation of Isadore Dreazon; and if he will say what reasons were assigned by Eberlein for wishing to come to this country and for what period he has been given permission to reside here?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): Eberlein was given leave to land at Harwich on the 27th May. This was subsequent to the conviction of Dreazon. I am informed that he stated that he was coming to London on a four or five days' visit. He left the country before the end of May.

Sir F. HALL: 41.
asked the Home Secretary whether an order has been made for the deportation of Isadore Dreazon, who was convicted at Manchester early in May for failing to
register as an alien and sentenced to a month's imprisonment; whether the order has been carried out; and if he will state to what country Dreazon has been sent?

Mr. SHORT: A deportation order has been made, but inquiries are not yet complete and are being pursued.

Sir F. HALL: But has the man been deported yet?

Mr. SHORT: No.

Sir F. HALL: Seeing that the sentence of a month's imprisonment was passed more than a month ago and that an order was made for his deportation, may I ask why that order has not been carried out?

Mr. SHORT: A deportation order has been issued and inquiries are being made. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why inquiries?"] When the inquiries are completed, we shall be in a better position to give the House information. I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend not to press me to say more upon this matter at present.

Sir F. HALL: Will it be satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman if I put down another question in a week's time?

Mr. SHORT: Certainly.

Sir F. HALL: Then I will do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

GOVERNMENT POLICY.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement concerning the Government's policy in relation to the mitigation of unemployment; and whether he proposes to make any new proposals to Parliament?

The PRIME MINISTER: The right hon. Gentleman's question is not one which can be answered at this part of the House's proceedings.

Sir K. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman proposing to make any general statement on this matter before long?

Sir K. WOOD: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he now proposes to set up a new unemployment committee apart from any Cabinet committee;
whether other persons will be included on it in addition to Ministers; what will be its exact functions as regards policy, finance, and administration; whether its proceedings will be secret and its members have full access to all papers and documents; and what will be its relations to the Cabinet?

The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that I am unable to gather what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind, but I can say that the Government will not delegate to any committee their responsibility in matters of policy, finance and administration.

Sir K. WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly refer to the speech of

The following table shows the estimated numbers of insured persons, aged 16 to 64, classified as belonging to the Textile Trades, including Textile Printing, Dyeing, Bleaching, etc., in Great Britain who were recorded as unemployed on 26th May, 1930:—


Industry.
Males.
Females.
Total.


Cotton
67,381
149,649
217,030


Woollen and Worsted
17,549
35,635
53,184


Silk and Artificial Silk
6,624
10,216
16,840


Linen
731
2,232
2,963


Jute
3,835
10,439
14,274


Hemp Spinning and Weaving, Rope, Cord, Twine, etc.
916
2,260
3,176


Hosiery
3,015
15,401
18,416


Lace
970
1,521
2,491


Carpets
1,017
1,962
2,979


Textile Industries not separately specified
1,297
4,844
6,141


Textile Bleaching, Printing, Dyeing, etc.
24,166
8,644
32,810

INSURANCE FUND.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 31.
asked the Minister of Labour by what date it will be necessary to make further provision for keeping the Unemployment Insurance Fund from bankruptcy, on the assumption that the unemployment figures continue to increase at the same average as they have done since 1st June, 1929?

Mr. LAWSON: On the assumption mentioned in the question, it is estimated that the present borrowing powers of the Unemployment Fund would be exhausted about the end of September next.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: In view of the enormous and increasing drain on financial resources, will the Parliamentary Secretary investigate the whole question of unemployment benefit, which is ruining the country?

the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), his new ally, on this matter?

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Do I gather that the right hon. Gentleman takes full responsibility for the increase in unemployment in recent times?

TEXTILE INDUSTRY.

Major ELLIOT (for Viscount WOLMER): 29.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of textile workers, printers, and women who are unemployed?

Mr. LAWSON: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 52.
asked the Prime Minister to which Minister questions relating to the employment policy of the Government should now be addressed?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave on the 5th June, in reply to a question in precisely the same terms put by the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer).

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANNEL TUNNEL.

Mr. THURTLE: 55.
asked the Prime Minister if he is prepared to allow the House an opportunity of discussing and voting upon a Motion that the construc
tion of a Channel tunnel, without assistance from public funds, should be permitted?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to what I have repeatedly said on this subject, and particularly to the replies which I gave on the 5th June to supplementary questions arising out of the Private Notice Question put to me by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham West (Sir A. Chamberlain).

Mr. THURTLE: Does the Prime Minister not think that this is a question on which the Government might take the initiative, and that as this is essentially a non-party matter the House might be asked to act as a council of State?

Mr. THURTLE: 56.
asked the Prime Minister if, at the time the Government came to its decision to veto the construction of a Channel tunnel, it was aware that private interests, without Exchequer assistance, were prepared to find the necessary finance for the boring of the experimental tunnel?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the White Paper, where the point raised in the question is referred to. I might add that I would refer him specifically to the first completed paragraph on page 3.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEBT REDEMPTION (REPARATION LOAN RECEIPTS).

Sir B. FALLE: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the method by which he proposes to utilise for debt repayment the cash proceeds resulting from the issue in Britain of the British portion of the Young plan reparations loan; whether he proposes to use it as a separate amount additional to the sum appearing in the 1930 Financial Statement as allocated for Sinking Fund purposes; and will the sum available be applied to the cancellation of funded debt or of floating debt?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): As I have previously stated, the share of Great Britain in the proceeds of the German Government International 5½ per cent. Loan, 1930, will be applied to debt redemption. At present I am not able to
say definitely the precise form in which it will be applied, but I hope to be able to do so very shortly.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman considering using the cash proceeds for the repayment of part of the American Debt before the date upon which that part falls due?

Mr. SNOWDEN: We are considering the best means by which this "windfall," if I may so call it, should be applied, and, as I said, I hone to be able to make an announcement in the course of a few days.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL DEBT (CONVERSION LOAN).

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can now make any statement with respect to the flotation of a Conversion Loan?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHILEAN LOANS.

Mr. HANNON: 62.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to the recent issue in New York of a Chilean loan for 25,000,000 United States of America dollars, and that these bonds were subsequently sold on the London market; if he is aware of the restriction on British loans operative in Chile in the form of Government taxes and Stamp Duties and if he will take steps to secure that British and United States of America loan emissions will be treated by the Chilean authorities on the same terms?

Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I am aware of the recent issue in the United States of America of the Chilean loan referred to, but I am unable to say whether, and if so to what extent, these bonds were subsequently sold on the London market. I have no information as to any discrimination by the Chilean authorities against loans in Great Britain, as compared with loans elsewhere, in the form of Chilean Government taxes and Stamp Duties.

Mr. HANNON: Will my hon. Friend be kind enough to make inquiries to see whether, in fact, there is any discrimination?

Mr. GILLETT: Yes, I will do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

TRADING VESSELS.

Mr. ALBERY: 63.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what privileges of an exceptional nature, if any, are accorded to Russian trading vessels belonging to the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics when visiting British ports?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I have been asked to reply. No special privileges are accorded to Russian trading vessels when visiting British ports.

Mr. ALBERY: Ought not these national vessels to be entitled to the same diplomatic privileges as the national trading office?

Mr. GRAHAM: I am not sure that I understand the supplementary question, but my information is that there is no discrimination.

PROPAGANDA.

Major ELLIOT (for Viscount WOLMER): 61.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is satisfied that the terms of the treaty with Russia in regard to propaganda are being strictly complied with?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Dalton): My right hon. Friend has at present nothing to add to the statement which he made in the debate on the Adjournment on the 6th of June.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Are we to understand that the Government have taken no steps during the Recess about this matter?

Mr. SMITHERS: May I ask if a committee has been set up to inquire into this question, and have they issued an interim report?

Mr. DALTON: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 32.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of days' work that have been lost as a result of industrial disputes during the past 12 months; and how this figure compares
with the number of days lost from the same cause during the previous 12 months?

Mr. LAWSON: The number of working days lost through industrial disputes in Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the 12 months ended 31st May, 1930, is estimated to have been approximately 10,600,000, of which about 9,400,000 are accounted for by the extensive disputes in the cotton and wool textile industries. The corresponding total for the previous 12 months was approximately 1,600,000.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Is this not a very sad commentary on the attitude of the Labour Government——

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

Mr. THORNE: Can the Parliamentary Secretary discriminate between the number of days which the men were on strike and the number of days when they were locked out?

Sir F. HALL: You call them all lockouts.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Member give any idea how many days have been lost where employers have been seeking reductions in wages?

Mr. LAWSON: No, I cannot.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXPORTATION OF HORSES BILL.

Mr. ERNEST WINTERTON: 51.
asked the Prime Minister in view of the large measure of public support for the Exportation of Horses Bill, whether facilities will be given in the present Session for the remaining stages of the Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: In view of the state of Parliamentary business, I fear I can hold out no prospect of time being found for this Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

The following question stood upon, the Order Paper in the name of Sir WALTER DE FRECE:

54. To ask the Prime Minister if he can now make any further statement as to the holding of a non-party conference on the agricultural crisis.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I understood the Minister of Agriculture to say that an answer would be given to this question.

Mr. SPEAKER: In any event, it could not be answered, because it is the fourth question on the Paper standing in the name of the hon. Member for Blackpool (Sir W. de Frece).

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is in a position to give further information to the House with regard to the situation in Malta?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): Owing to the state of public feeling in the Island, the elections are still being held in abeyance by the Governor in the exercise of his reserved powers. The question of what further measures should be taken to deal with the situation is under consideration by His Majesty's Government.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Now that Lord Strickland is in this country, will my hon. Friend give the constitutional Prime Minister of Malta every assistance in dealing with this outbreak of medievalism in Malta?

Dr. SHIELS: The Prime Minister of Malta has already had an opportunity of putting his views before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is he getting assistance from the Department?

Dr. SHIELS: He will get all proper assistance.

Oral Answers to Questions — ICELANDIC WATERS (BRITISH TRAWLER "VARANGER").

Mr. WOMERSLEY: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has received a report of the firing of four live shells by the Danish gunboat "Hyidbjornen" on the Grimsby trawler "Varanger" on 24th May in Icelandic waters; and will he have full inquiries made with a view to representations being made to the Danish Government?

Mr. DALTON: The attention of my right hon. Friend has been called to this incident, and he will certainly make representations if he finds that the circumstances warrant them.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Has a request been made to the Foreign Secretary that he should receive a deputation on this matter?

Mr. DALTON: I have not heard of that, but, as a matter of fact, we have the matter under consideration at this moment, and are very anxious to do all that we can.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: If such a deputation comes along, will the Secretary of State receive it?

Mr. DALTON: I will convey that suggestion to my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, TIENTSIN).

Sir DENNIS HERBERT: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give any information in regard to the state of affairs at Tientsin, and the statements in the Press that the Commissioner of Customs at Tientsin has taken refuge in the British Consulate?

Mr. DALTON: My right hon. Friend has received official confirmation of the Press report that a person named Lennox Simpson has been appointed Commissioner of Customs at Tientsin by the de facto local Chinese authorities, in place of Colonel Hayley Bell, the Commissioner appointed by the Nanking Government. My right hon. Friend has no official confirmation of the report that Mr. Simpson has actually assumed office, or that Colonel Hayley Bell has taken refuge in the British Consulate.

Sir D. HERBERT: In view of the statement that the Commissioner has retired to the Consulate, will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries and ascertain what the position is?

Mr. DALTON: Yes, Sir; we are making inquiries.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir K. WOOD: 45.
asked the prime Minister whether he can now state the Bills for which he proposes to give facilities this Session?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the statement I made in reply to a question by the Leader of the Opposition on the 4th June. I can only repeat that I will announce the intention of the Government in this matter as soon as possible.

Sir K. WOOD: The right hon. Gentleman will not forget the poor old Trade Disputes Bill?

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he can state what business he proposes to take on Friday; and whether he has any statement to make with regard to the order of questions?

The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to Friday's business, we propose to take a number of small Bills—the Mental Treatment Bill, consideration of Lords Amendments; Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Bill, consideration of Lords Amendments; Air Transport (Subsidy Agreements) Bill, Third Reading; Overseas Trade Bill, Third Reading; and, if there be time, Workmen's Compensation (Silicosis) Bill [Lords], Second Reading.
As regards the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, the answer is that it is proposed that, as from Tuesday, the 24th June, questions addressed to the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs shall occupy the place on the Order Paper previously occupied by questions to the Lord Privy Seal. The arrangement under which the first four Ministers who answer questions on Tuesdays in turn occupy the first, second, third and fourth places on the Order Paper on Tuesdays will remain unchanged. That may seem to be a rather complicated statement, but, if hon. Members will be good enough to look at the OFFICIAL REPORT, I think they will find that it is all right.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL.

Further considered in Committee. [Progress, 5th June.]

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 17.—(Exemption, from income tax of income arising from office or employment of consul or official agent.)

The CHAIRMAN: I do not propose to call the first three Amendments on the Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams)—(1) in page 15, line 29, to leave out the words "and no," and to insert instead thereof the words "but full"; (2) to leave out the word "such"; and (3) after the word "income," to insert the words "from trade or business." The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Torquay—in page 15, line 34, to leave out paragraph (a)—that in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne)—in page 15, line 36, to leave out paragraph (b)—and that in the name of the right hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (Major Tryon)—in page 16, line 3, to leave out from the word "agent," to the end of the Subsection—appear to me to negative the Clause. I propose to call the Amendment in the name of the right hon. and gallant Member for Brighton—in page 15, line 41, at the end, to insert the words
Provided that this section shall not apply to the consul or official agent of any foreign state which has not made reciprocal arrangements to a similar effect with His Majesty's Government"—
and I would suggest that there might be a general discussion on that Amendment, with Divisions, if desired, upon it and the following Amendments—in page 16, line 8, to leave out the words "for the purposes of profit," and in line 9, at the end, to add the words
Provided that this section shall not apply to the income of any consul or official agent in the service of any foreign state which has made default in meeting its financial obligations"—
on the understanding that such general discussion be not repeated on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: May I ask for your guidance on this matter? You mentioned that you were not going to call the first three Amendments on the Paper, but I am not quite certain whether you are going to call upon me to move my Amendment to leave out paragraph (a).

The CHAIRMAN: I said that the Amendments to leave out paragraphs (a) and (b), and the Amendment in the name of the right hon. and gallant Member for Brighton, in page 16, line 3, appear to me to negative the Clause. I now propose to call upon the right hon. and gallant Member for Brighton to move his Amendment in page 15, line 41.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 15, line 41, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that this section shall not apply to the consul or official agent of any foreign state which has not made reciprocal arrangements to a similar effect with His Majesty's Government.
I move this Amendment in the absence of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brighton (Major Tryon), and I do so for various purposes. This Clause, as far as I understand it, has been put into the Bill for the specific purpose of exempting certain Consular officers who are employed in this country by foreign Powers, and I think that, before the Committee decides to exempt any body of persons in this country from payment of Income Tax, we should have from the Government a very clear and definite reason for such exemption. I fully realise that some reason may be given, such as that they are employed by this or that foreign Power, but I think we ought to know definitely what will be the cost of this exemption to the Exchequer, and also how many people, approximately, it is likely to affect. Having arrived at that point, we shall be able to form some sort of estimate of the extent of the need for this Clause. It seems to me and to some of my hon. Friends that this Clause may be put in for some special purpose. I will separate, if I may, the two bodies of people whom it may affect——

Mr. DENMAN: On a point of Order. Are we discussing the Amendment in page 15, line 41, or the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," to which the hon. Member's present remarks appear to be directed?

The CHAIRMAN: My suggestion was that we should have a general discussion on the Amendment in page 15, line 41, and in that respect the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) is in order.

Mr. CHURCHILL: On that point of Order. May we have everything made quite clear? You have suggested that there should be a general discussion on this particular Amendment, and it is not for us to say that any inconvenience arises from that, but it must not be supposed that we in any way abrogate or invalidate our right to discuss other Amendments fully.

The CHAIRMAN: I am not clear to which Amendments the right hon. Gentleman is referring.

Mr. CHURCHILL: There is an important Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto)—in page 16, line 8, to leave out the words "for the purposes of profit"—which we shall certainly desire to discuss in a manner very different from arranging that it shall go through pro forma.

The CHAIRMAN: I may say that the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's (Sir L. Worthington-Evans)—in page 16, line 9, at the end, to add the words:
Provided that this section shall not apply to the income of any consul or official agent in the service of any foreign state which has made default in meeting its financial obligations,
seems to me to be rather vague, and I cannot quite see why it cannot be covered in the discussion I suggest.

Mr. CHURCHILL: That difficulty will, no doubt, be completely dispersed, and the whole position clarified, when the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Amendment rises to explain it to the Committee.

The CHAIRMAN: Then I will call that Amendment.

Mr. DENMAN: I gather that what we are now discussing is a proviso that the Clause shall not apply to certain agents in certain circumstances, and, on that question, it seems to me to be very inappropriate to have a discussion on the merits of the Clause as a whole. The discussion up to the present has been,
obviously, more in relation to the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The CHAIRMAN: I did not say that I would not allow a discussion on the Clause. I said that, when we came to the discussion on the Clause as a whole, there might be a shorter discussion.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): This practice of having a general discussion upon a particular Amendment has been increasing considerably in the last few years, but it has always been on the understanding that it would obviate a detailed discussion upon further Amendments on the Paper. From what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) said just now, I gathered that he is maintaining the right to have a full discussion upon any Amendment which may be called, but I do not think that it can conduce either to the convenience of the Committee or to the saving of time to have a general discussion now, and then, perhaps, a long discussion on any other Amendment which you may call.

The CHAIRMAN: My suggestion was that, on the Amendment which is now before the Committee, there might be a general discussion on the questions covered by any other Amendments which it seems to affect. As to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's (Sir L. Worthington-Evans) I was rather in doubt, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has suggested that it will be explained. I suggest that, if we have this wide discussion now, it should certainly curtail to a large extent the discussion on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. CHURCHILL: I accept what you say. If we are to have, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has now suggested, a narrow discussion upon the Amendment before the Committee, surely it would have been natural for the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to have given an explanation of the Clause as a whole before the Amendment had been moved. We have not received an explanation of the Clause as a whole at all.

The CHAIRMAN: I intended, before the Question "That the Clause stand part" was put, to get rid of this Amendment, and the other Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's (Sir L. Worthington-Evans). I think that the other Amendments are smaller and are covered by the present Amendment.

Sir LAMING WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is the point I wanted to raise. One of the so-called smaller Amendments—in page 16, line 8, to leave out the words "for the purposes of profit"—raises a very large question. This Clause, in effect, exempts consuls, in certain capacities perhaps, from taxation. If a consul trades for profit, is his profit to be exempted? That is the sort of question which is raised by this Amendment, and it is really a very important one and quite distinct from the general case.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that there need be a long discussion on this Amendment.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As long as it is not ruled out.

The CHAIRMAN: The two Amendments I propose to take are the one which I have called and the one in page 16, line 8, to leave out the words "for the purposes of profit." If the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's (Sir L. Worthington-Evans) is not covered by the present discussion, I shall call it.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Do I understand that you intend to call the Amendment in page 16, line 8, to leave out the words "for the purposes of profit"?

The CHAIRMAN: Yes.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Are we to have a general discussion on the Amendment which you have now called and a general discussion on the Clause without there being an understanding that discussion upon the other Amendments will, as far as we are concerned, necessarily be abridged?

The CHAIRMAN: This Amendment in relation to the consul or official agent covers a large number of Amendments on the Paper. I propose to take the
Amendment in page 16, line 8—to leave out the words "for the purposes of profit"—and the next Amendment—in page 16, line 9, at the end, to add the words:
Provided that this section shall not apply to the income of any consul or official agent in the service of any foreign state which has made default in meeting its financial obligations.
They cover a very large part of the Clause, and it will not be necessary to have a long discussion on the Clause itself, as I have suggested.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Do I understand that at present the points which I am entitled to discuss are only those which have any connection with the arrangement made for reciprocity between the two countries, and also how far these are mutual arrangements between the various countries? I assume that these are the points with which we are dealing. It is impossible to know how far this reciprocity is to affect this country unless some figures are given as to the number of people who will be affected. Does it affect practically the whole of the consular services in the country, or is it meant to affect a section of the consular service who, because of the difference in the nature of their Government as compared with the Governments of other people, are to have this special privilege given to them? I wish to know whether this is put in purely to enable certain officials of Soviet Russia to carry on trade in this country. Is this Clause put into the Bill in order that trade carried on in this way shall not be subject to taxation? That may be one explanation of the insertion of the Clause.
There may be another explanation, and that is, that every consular servant in this country should have exemption under this Clause. If this is so, it will affect a very large number of people. Are our officials going to receive the same kind of exemption and the same kind of benefits in other countries? Do our consular services get similar benefits in the South American countries, for instance, or in the Eastern countries? We should be given information on this point as it is one of considerable substance. We are entitled to know whether this is another instance of the Government trying to give a direct benefit to the foreigner, and, if so, we ought to know how much it is
going to cost and how much the taxpayers of this country will have to pay to make the concession. It is clear that any representative of a foreign country who comes here and receives this exemption will, in view of the high direct taxation in this country in comparison with the low indirect taxation, get an enormous benefit out of all proportion to what our people may get in a highly protected country. Obviously, if an official representative of Britain in a protected country, where the Income Tax may be small, obtains exemption from the payment of Income Tax, it may not be of any real benefit to him, because it is not the form upon which the largest amount of taxation in those countries is based. It is conceivable in this case that because we are an Income Tax collecting country on an abnormally high scale our officials may have to bring into other countries articles for their own use and may actually pay in taxation in another way on an abnormally high, or comparatively high standard. This is a point which should go straight to the heart of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It should appeal to him in those places where he has most heart. Surely it is a matter which he might follow with interest and see whether he cannot get some further advantages, so that our people in other countries are not burdened with taxation when foreign representatives in this country get off scot free.
I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give us the fullest information as to his intention in putting this Clause down. I have heard it said that it is only to affect a small section of the Consular service, but it may possibly affect practically the whole of the service, and it certainly will, as far as any reciprocity is concerned, unless we get some very definite advantage in foreign countries for our own people to get in goods they want and to be exempt from duty. If the Chancellor would answer those questions, some of us would feel relieved in our minds if we have eventually to support the Bill. I am having a considerable amount of difficulty with people who seem to think he is trying to place some added burden on our own people, and I have not yet been able to explain properly and adequately what he is actually doing and, until I can do so, I am in the unfortunate position of having people throwing bricks at the right hon. Gentleman
and I am not able to divert them in any way. I know the Chancellor is following in the footsteps of a much more brilliant man and that adds to his difficulties. I hope he will meet my Amendment. It will be an enormous advantage if he can accept it, and it would help many of us to give him further support.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I make a further request in order to avoid a misunderstanding such as arose between us on a previous occasion. As you, Sir, have invited a general discussion on the Amendment, I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say what is the reason for having this Clause in the Bill at all; in other words, to explain, not merely the specific questions which my hon. Friend has put, but the whole purpose of the Clause, the reason why such a Clause now becomes necessary, and what difference it will make from the practice which we have hitherto followed.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I hope hon. Members opposite will not make a mountain out of a mole-hill. We are asking for the Clause to give statutory authority to what has been the practice for nearly 100 years. Some criticism was made by the Public Accounts Committee about the continuance of the relief of Consuls from Income Tax under a Treasury concession and not by Statute, and, in order to conform with their request, it is proposed to give statutory authority for what since 1842 has been the general practice. Whatever may be said about the ambiguity and difficulty of some of the Clauses of the Bill, I think that criticism cannot apply to this Clause, because it is peculiarly clearly drafted, and a reading of it gives, perhaps, the clearest explanation of what is intended by it.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman read the Treasury Minute?

4.0 p.m.

Mr. SNOWDEN: The Committee may take it that that is the fact. Consuls, consul-generals, vice-consuls and consular agents, irrespective of whether they are foreign or British nationals, will get relief from Income Tax, but—this does not appear to be fully appreciated in view of some of the Amendments which have been put down—they get relief upon their official emoluments only. Up to 1922 the relief had been extended in practice to all
the employés of a foreign consul. In 1922 a change was made limiting it to consuls, but in practice it was found to be quite impracticable, because many consuls have insisted upon regarding everyone in their employ—clerks and typists, including British subjects—as being entitled to relief. This Clause will clarify that position. As regards consuls, the relief has been given regardless of nationality. It is proposed to continue that relief to all consuls, vice-consuls, and consular agents, whether they are foreign nationals or not, in the service of any foreign State.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Do I understand that that will cover consular clerks or others employed by the consul?

Mr. SNOWDEN: They will come under paragraph (b).

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I understood the right hon. Gentleman said that consuls covered all consular agents?

Mr. SNOWDEN: It is explained in Sub-section (3):
In this section the expression 'consul' means a person recognised by His Majesty as being a consul-general, consul, vice-consul or consular agent, and the expression 'official agent' means a person not being a consul, who is employed on the staff of any consulate, official department or agency of a foreign state, not being a department or agency which carries on any trade, business or other undertaking for the purposes of profit.
Therefore, "official agent" will include the staff of the consulate provided they are doing the ordinary duties of a consulate staff. An attempt has been made to include British subjects belonging to the consular staff in the scope of the relief. It is not proposed that they should get relief. That would place them in a very much better position than the British employés of a foreign embassy. Is there any other point which I have not answered?

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: What were the numbers and the amount?

Mr. SNOWDEN: As to the cost, as I said at the beginning, there is no large amount of revenue involved in it. I am told by the Inland Revenue that the amount is so infinitesimal that they have not taken the trouble to make an estimate of it.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: The right hon. Gentleman spoke about this nullifying something, and at another moment he spoke of it carrying on the practice of the past. Will he make it perfectly clear whether, in fact, any British staffs of consulates have hitherto paid Income Tax, and whether the first half of paragraph (b), which excludes those British subjects who are so employed, is a new aspect of the matter or not, because I rather gather, from what the right hon. Gentleman said, that, in fact, they have been excluded in the past?

Mr. SNOWDEN: Under the old concession, as I said, consuls have generally claimed relief for all their staff down to clerks or typists, whether British or foreign nationals. In future, British nationals employed by the staff of the consulate will not be exempt from Income Tax upon the emoluments of their office. That, I think, is the only point. I have answered the question raised by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) about the cost, which is infinitesimal.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: The numbers?

Mr. SNOWDEN: There are a great many. I cannot give the exact number, but I am told that the number is very considerable. Foreign States do exempt the incomes of British consuls from taxation, and some of them, I am given to understand, deal with the matter rather more generously than we do. Therefore, there is no need at all to impose in this Clause the condition of reciprocity, because if we made reciprocity a condition, it might be that we should have to extend the proposals of this Bill, and give even a larger concession in this country than they enjoy. I may add—and the right hon. Gentleman with his experience of the Foreign Office will agree—that the Foreign Office has always taken the view that we should not embody in legislation any proposals for reciprocity in regard to this matter.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The Committee was told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this Clause was to put into legal form a practice which had been pursued by the Treasury for 100 years. I asked for the Treasury Minute, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer
has not got it. I asked for it in order that the Committee might be in a position to check this Clause and compare the exemption given by the Treasury Minute with the exemption given by this Bill, and now, under a process of cross-examination, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is obliged to admit that this Clause goes a great deal further than the Treasury Minute, because, under the Treasury Minute, Britishers and foreigners employed by a consul were treated alike. Both sets of employés were treated alike, and, both escaped Income Tax in respect of their emoluments. In future, however, the British are not to escape Income Tax, but the foreigners are. Those in the employment of the consuls are for the first time differentiated between. If there is a British employé, he has to pay Income Tax, but if there is a foreigner employed by a consul in London, he is not to pay Income Tax. That is a variation, as I understand, by the Chancellor from the Treasury Minute, and my right hon. Friend interposed to ask the Chancellor not to deal separately with single questions, but really to state the position. The Chancellor commenced by saying that this Clause is merely to legalise a position which has been adopted by the Treasury for 100 years, but when we go into it we find something quite different. A penalty is being put on British employment, and a subsidy is being given to foreign employment. It amounts to that. With Income Tax at its present high rate, it, of course, amounts to a preference in favour of the foreigner both in employment and in emoluments. Then we ask whether there is reciprocity, and the Chancellor vaguely says that in some countries there is reciprocity, but in others there is not.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I said that in a very large number of countries there was reciprocity.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: And as regards the others—the minority—what about them? Of course, the Chancellor did say there was no reciprocity in some, and his statement repeats it. In a large number of cases there is reciprocity; in the others there is no reciprocity. This Amendment proposes to limit this Clause to the consuls
of countries where reciprocity is given, and surely that is very wise. There is no country in the world with so high a rate of Income Tax as we have, and there is no country, therefore, that does not gain more from us than it gives to us, even if it exempts us from their lower rate of Income Tax. It seems to me that we ought to insist upon reciprocity in this matter.
There is another question I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which he does not seem to have answered. At any rate, I did not understand it. Paragraph (a) of Sub-section (2), he said, referred to the official emoluments of both British and foreign consuls, and he drew a distinction between paragraph (a) and paragraph (b). Is it the case that paragraph (b) does not refer to foreign people? Does it deal only with British? Let me put this question: Does the trade agent in this country who represents the Russian Government doing an exporting trade to this country, have to pay Income Tax upon any profits that may be made in this country either by him, if he is an official agent as is contemplated by this Clause, or by the Russian Government? Is that trade carried on without the Government or its agent being liable to Income Tax, and may I ask whether that is a form of subsidised competition which the Chancellor is asking us to support and adopt? It is said that by the definition that does not apply, or rather that the official agent
means a person. … who is employed on the staff of any … agency of a foreign State, not being a department or agency which carries on any trade. … for the purposes of profit.
That depends upon what is intended to be represented by "carrying on trade for the purposes of profit." We know very well that certain Socialists consider that trade ought not to be carried on for profit, but that it ought to be carried on for use. I do not know whether the Russian Government adopt that attitude and say that their trade section is not being carried on for profit. I can quite believe that it would pay them, as they want foreign exchange, to send goods here on which it would be quite easy to show that there was no actual profit, that is to say, the selling price was even below the price of production in Russia. What power have we got to check that, if a claim is made for
exemption from tax? It is obscure, and, therefore, I ask the Chancellor whether it is intended to exempt from Income Tax in this country the official agent of the Russian Government, whether he makes a profit or not, or whether it is a profit which the Russian Government makes and which he says he does not make? I put this as a, sufficiently specific question to enable the right hon. Gentleman to answer. I would still ask him to produce the Treasury Minute to enable the Committee to compare what has been done in the past with what is proposed here, and I ask him definitely to say whether there is a preference, as I fancy there is in this Clause, in favour of foreign employment at the expense of British employment?

Mr. SNOWDEN: There is no provision in this Clause giving preference to foreign employment. [HON. MEMBERS: "You said so!"] A British national employed by a foreign consulate is treated exactly as a British subject in British employment. If he were not so treated, it would be giving preference to persons in foreign employment in this country. In regard to the point about trading profits, the head of the Russian trade delegation in this country and two of his officials have diplomatic status, and, therefore, they do not come within this Clause. They are not regarded as consuls, but as diplomats, but it is only upon their official salaries as such that they would get exemption. All the other servants or officials of the Russian trade delegation will come under that part of the Clause which exempts from relief those engaged in trade for profit.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: The Chancellor of the Exchequer said there was a danger with regard to reciprocity, because we might get worse terms abroad than we now get, but I do not see how that argument applies. The right hon. Gentleman said that in a good many cases abroad, consuls were exempt from the Income Tax of the country concerned, but he did not deal with the question of consular staffs abroad. By this Bill, as I understand, we are going to give exemption to consular staffs of foreign origin working in this country, and, therefore, surely we are entitled to ask, as a measure of reciprocity, that not
only consuls abroad but British citizens who are working as vice-consuls up and down the world should have the same measure of consideration as, by this Clause, we are giving to foreign individuals working here.
With regard to the Russian delegation here, I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that three of them owing to having diplomatic privileges will not have to pay Income Tax, and no doubt a similar advantage is extended to our trade commissioners in Russia, but if, as happened before, the Soviet Government builds up a large trading establishment, as I see it they will be covered by Sub-section (3) of this Clause. The Russian Government may build up a very large staff here, as was the case in 1927, when they had to leave the country, who would all of them, under this Clause, be exempt from English taxation, although it is common knowledge that we should only have two or three individuals in our commercial delegation in Russia, and therefore we are giving a great advantage in that way to Russia. Those are three points of substance to which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reply.

Major GEORGE DAVIES: The Chancellor of the Exchequer, with that sweet reasonableness of which, by constant use, he is such a master, implored us not to make a mountain out of a molehill. I have always been suspicious of molehills, because the inhabitants of a molehill do their nefarious work underground, and as this debate has gone on the molehill, it seems, is getting rather mountainous. I think it is reasonable that the consular corps of a foreign country, along with ours abroad, should be relieved of Income Tax on their official emoluments, for the reason that they are sent under discipline. They do not choose whether or not they will go; they are always sent. By courtesy, therefore, they are relieved, but as soon as you get beyond that and extend it to the staffs of such individuals, you at once begin to land yourselves into difficulties; and although the amount concerned may be so unimportant that the Treasury have not thought fit to prepare information to allow this Committee to know how much it is, by the Chancellor's own admission there is going to be an extraordinarily unfair differentiation.
If a foreign consular official engages as a typist a foreigner, that foreigner does not pay any Income Tax, but if he engages an English person, that person has to pay Income Tax at 4s. 6d. or whatever the rate may be. I submit that that is going a great deal further than this country has ever gone before or than this Committee should go on this occasion. On the other hand, it brings out the importance of there being perfectly strict reciprocacy in this matter. I welcome any attempt to rectify the crying shame to the taxpayers of all countries of having to pay double taxation, of having to pay taxes on the same income in the country of origin and in the country of residence, and this is a small step towards the ideal of ultimately having only single taxation of individuals, but while I think everyone would agree that the actual consular emoluments of a consular officer, by reciprocity, should be free from Income Tax, I view with considerable apprehension the extension of it provided for in this Clause.
I am sure hon. Members opposite will acquit me of being obsessed, as they might say, with the Soviet nightmare, but they must admit that the conditions under which that country operates are entirely exceptional and different from anything that the world has ever been accustomed to in diplomatic representation. Consequently, any provision for the normal conditions of diplomatic representation does not necessarily apply. We have some experience before of an enormous aggregation of employés under the roof of a so-called diplomatic establishment, contrary to world experience of what a diplomatic establishment was, and we had all kinds of people there closely connected with trade. A large number of them were coming to live here and to do work that could quite as well be done by employés of British nationality, but if British people are employed, they have to pay the predatory rate of taxation with which this country is now saddled, whereas if they take in a foreigner, he gets his income 100 per cent. free of tax.
By trying to correct one irregularity, the Chancellor of the Exchequer lets himself in for a state of affairs which, if we do away with any partly feeling in the matter and regard it from a business
point of view, seems to be to be unsound. It is unfair that a typist in an ordinary office in the City of London should have to pay Income Tax, and that if she gets a job in a foreign Consular office she should be free of it, but that anomaly is still worse when you have two sitting side by side, doing precisely the same job, and earning the same salary, but one paying 4s. 6d. in the £ Income Tax and the other not. If the amount involved is infinitesimal and the numbers concerned are limited, the Chancellor would do well to leave the matter as is has been in the past, instead of seeking to drive it to a logical conclusion which only drives us into a logical impasse.

Major LLEWELLIN: The duty of a Government is to look after the interests of its own nationals, but this Clause seems to differentiate between two classes of persons. First of all, Sub-section (2, a) allows a Consul, who is defined by Sub-section (3) as meaning a Consul-General, Consul, Vice-Consul, or Consular agent, to be exempt from our British Income Tax, whether he is of British nationality or not. He is a more highly paid official in a Consul's office, and he is allowed this exemption, but when we get down to one of his typists, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, or one of the more poorly paid members of his staff, if that person is a British subject, immediately he is not exempt from British tax, whereas if he is a foreigner, he is exempt. It seems to me very strange that this differentiation should be made by the party opposite between the poorer people and the richer, exempting the richer from taxation but not the poorer.
The main exception which I take to this Clause, however, is this: It may well have been that some 50 years before I was born this arrangement was made by a Treasury Minute, which was altered slightly in the year in which I was born, but that did not differentiate, as this Clause will now do, between the British person employed in a Consular office and the foreign person so employed, and if we are giving this privilege to foreigners here, it seems to me only right and proper that we should insist on like concessions being made abroad to us. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said there were a great many countries which were at present giving us that reciprocal
concession. He did not vouchsafe to name them, and I think it is only fair that the Committee should know which nations are giving us this preferential treatment and which are not. When he says that there are a great many which are giving it, obviously there is a certain number which are not, and if we are going to give that benefit here to the agents and the Consuls of those States, it is only right and proper that we should at the same time obtain a similar concession for our people who are employed in those foreign countries.
I cannot understand any reason for any Government of this country trying to exempt from British taxation foreign people who come here, unless at the same time they get some benefit for our own nationals who are sent from this country to serve abroad. I should have thought that this Amendment, which stands in my name as well as in that of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brighton (Major Tryon), would have been accepted by the Government. Certainly I view Sub-section (2, b) of this Clause with considerable disfavour, in that obviously it will pay foreign consuls here to employ in their offices people whom they import from abroad. If you are going to charge Income Tax to one man and not to another it is obvious that, to make both ends meet in his family, the man who has to pay Income Tax will want a rather higher salary than the other man. That being the case, no doubt the consular offices will go to the cheaper market and will bring over here foreign subjects whom they can employ at a less wage, for the very simple reason that they have not to pay any Income Tax out of that wage. This Clause, as it stands, is going to hamper, although it may not be much, employment for our own people in this country and will give a benefit to foreigners who seek employment here. In that way, it is a departure from the practice of the Treasury since 1842 and is to be thoroughly deplored. I hope that this Amendment in regard to reciprocity which stands in my name will be carried to a Division.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have listened to this debate with an increasing feeling of astonishment that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have seen fit to overload this already complicated and
controversial Budget by the introduction of a Clause like this. Whether his officials have taken advantage of his inexperience and thrust before him a number of stock departmental amendments and grievances which they would be glad to have cleared out of the way, and he has not noticed it, nor realised it, or whether there is some other reason, some desire to show favour to some particular Government with whom the right hon. Gentleman and his Government are willing to have specially agreeable relations; which of these it may be I cannot attempt to decide, but of this I am sure, that a more foolish course for the right hon. Gentleman to take than to introduce into the Budget a Clause of this kind, which, as has been shown, has vices inherent in it against which Parliament is bound emphatically to protest, is certainly an astonishing course to take. There is, of course, a third reason which has actuated the right hon. Gentleman, and I am inclined to think perhaps it may be the true one. The right hon. Gentleman is anxious so to cumber the Budget with unessential details, and this sort of trumpery matter which could quite well be left for another year when we were not imposing an additional £50,000,000 or £60,000,000 taxation, as to exhaust and weary the House in the hope that his more general proposition on taxation may escape without the examination which they deserve.
Whichever of these three reasons may have actuated the right hon. Gentleman, the fact remains that he has not been content to allow the practice to proceed upon the basis of the Treasury Minute. He has brought it to our notice and forced us to examine in detail the propositions which hitherto have rested, as it were, under general acquiescence. But he has added a new and more precise definition of the tolerances which have been allowed in the past. Therefore, we are bound to examine it. He knows that by this departure which he has made and by the principles to which he asks us to subscribe—I am not going to dwell upon the extraordinary facts elicited in cross-examination from the Chancellor of the Exchequer by my right hon. Friend the Member for St. George's (Sir L. Worthington-Evans)—he is actually putting a premium upon the employment of foreigners by the consul of a foreign State and a consequent impediment upon
the employment of British subjects. This point has been clearly made. It is entirely in harmony with the general logical scheme and outlook of the party opposite and is one which cannot be too widely censured and held up to public animadversion throughout the country as the policy of the Socialist party.
We have to take into consideration the whole issue of reciprocity. This Amendment raises that point directly. It is quite true that in the palmy days of Queen Victoria, in 1842 and thereafter, when this country was at the summit of its power and had reached the highest point in its long history, when in every sphere of trade and finance and on the seas we held an undisputed and almost indisputable supremacy, many tolerances and indulgences were vouchsafed to foreigners. But now in these harder times, when a far sharper competition rules the world and when we find ourselves in no way met by other countries in the spirit in which we guided our policy, we have at every point to go carefully over and count our balance, to examine the whole bearing of any concessions which we may give to foreigners and to make sure that we get the full value for any concessions that we may make.
I recommend the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw this Clause and not occupy the Committee talking about these matters which, on his own showing, need never have come before us but for his spirit of meticulous pedantry which desired to include them. If he refuses to withdraw this Clause, then I ask him why cannot he accept the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend? Why should we give these favours to nations that do not give these favours to us? Why should we discriminate against our own nationals when employed in the consular offices of a foreign State when the foreign State does not similarly give a favour to our nationals when employed under our own consuls in that foreign State?
Of course, if reciprocity were established, and full reciprocity, you would be able to say that it is much better for the consul of Russia or Germany to employ a German or a Russian than to employ an English person on his staff; and, on the other hand, our consuls in their countries would have an advantage and an incentive to employ British persons on their staffs. Let the right hon.
Gentleman insist upon reciprocity. Let him embody this Amendment in the Clause. Let him say that it would apply only to people who treat us in the same way as we treat them. The right hon. Gentleman would be routed. Who is the cause of this debate and its prolongation? It is the right hon. Gentleman. Why did he want to stick this Clause on the face of this Bill unless he is asking us to make a new affirmation of principle? If we have to make new affirmations of principle we must make them in relation to the changed circumstances of the times in which we live. The right hon. Gentleman would be well advised even now to withdraw this Clause. If he refuses, then all I can say is that he will be well advised to accept the Amendment. If he refuses to accept the Amendment, it will only be another instance of the unlimited bad weather that he is capable of making for himself.

Mr. REMER: I want to protest about the way the right hon. Gentleman has conducted this debate this afternoon. Obviously, he did not know very much about the Clause. He contradicted himself three or four times in the course of his speech, and he could not make it quite clear to the House what the Clause was about. It is only one more confirmation of what the country is thinking about the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which is that he is fast becoming the world's worst Chancellor of the Exchequer. Russia is setting up a huge trading organisation, and if I understand the right hon. Gentleman aright, their agents will not be liable to British Income Tax, because the direct agents of the Russian Government when they come here evade Income Tax. Their competitors who are selling the same goods throughout the British Dominions will be liable for British Income Tax.
May I point out something further? The agent of a foreign State is called a consul, but in the case of our own Dominions he is called a High Commissioner. I am credibly informed that the High Commissioners are liable to British Income Tax, although they are doing exactly the same work as the foreign consuls are doing. I should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, to tell us whether it is a fact that the High Commissioners for the Dominions are
entitled to this exemption from British Income Tax? It does seem to me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made no answer whatever to the point that he is putting an absolute premium on the employment of foreign clerks in the offices of these consuls and that by that means is going to deprive a great many British people of employment which they might expect to secure. I think we ought to make the strongest protest against the inadequate way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has seen fit to treat the Committee.

Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question. I understand that the Treasury Minute was issued and presented a good many years ago in regard to the point of non-payment of Income Tax. I understand that the Public Accounts Committee then issued a report in which they said that the practice under the Treasury Minute should be legalised and put into a Bill and that the Treasury presented a Measure to that effect. Why cannot the Chancellor give us some information about the Public Accounts Committee's report? Why can he not allow us to see the Minute? I do not see what is the object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to letting us see that Minute or reading the relevant passages from it, or giving us some references to the Public Accounts Committee's report. We should be able to see in what way the Bill differs from the Treasury Minute. I do not want to press the right hon. Gentleman unduly, but I cannot understand his objection to giving the terms of the Minute to the Committee.
The other point is this. We have gone on the assumption that only consular agents are in question; that it is a commercial or trade matter. That is not the case if one reads the Clause. As I read it, it refers to those employed on the staff of any consulate, official agent, or agency of a foreign State; that is, to those who are employed on the staff of any agency of a foreign State. Under this Clause Russia could set up an agency in this country; and it must be an official agency because no other agency is allowed to exist. If such an agency is set up it need not be for commercial purposes at all; it
may be for political purposes, and, as the Clause stands, the official agents who come here for political purposes can be exempted from Income Tax. I am perfectly certain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not wish or intend this, but as the Clause stands there is nothing to prevent it. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept an Amendment to make it perfectly clear that it is only the official staff of consuls who will come under the Clause.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: From the short attempt of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain this paragraph, I really cannot think that he understood the matter at all, and, therefore, I hope he will withdraw it and bring it forward again, if necessary. It is a Clause which could only be brought in by a Socialist Government, because it benefits the foreigner and no one else. It gives him not only an advantage but a distinct preference. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, apparently, does not realise that if a man receives £1 a week in wages, and the Government takes 4s. 6d. in Income Tax, that he has only 15s. 6d. to spend on himself. The man who pays no Income Tax has a distinct advantage. He has the whole pound to spend and so can afford to take a lower salary. This Clause will only mean throwing our own people out of work and giving employment to the foreigner. No one gets any benefit under this Bill except the bookmakers and foreigners. We all know why the bookmaker gets a benefit, but I do not understand why the foreigner should be the recipient of this tender treatment. The Clause is quite unnecessary. It is put forward as a pretence to put things in order and to relieve the burdens upon our people. As a matter of fact, it does not relieve any burdens; it places additional burdens upon them. I hope the Committee will reject this paragraph. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the amount involved was infinitesimal, in fact, so small that the Treasury had not taken the trouble to work it out. If that is the case, how can he say that it is infinitesimal? It may be much larger than he imagines. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Clause, and if he does not that the Committee will reject it.

Mr. AMERY: I should like to follow up the question raised with regard to the position of corresponding agencies and staffs of other Governments in the British Empire. I know that High Commissioners enjoy certain exemptions, but for the purposes of this Clause the parallel position is the position of Agents-General; the Agents-General of the Australian States and the Canadian Provinces, and the Agents-General who conduct business operations for Malaya and East Africa. Are all their staffs to be also exempt from Income Tax; is special distinction to be made between the representative of the Malayan Government if he is domiciled in Malaya and a member of the staff taken on in this country? I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deal with these points. If he does not, and if an invidious distinction is made to the advantage of foreign agencies and their staffs as compared with the staffs of other Governments in the British Empire, it will create a good deal of ill-feeling and trouble.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: I should like to emphasise what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) and other speakers on this side of the Committee, and ask why this Clause has been imported into the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us that a Treasury Minute of 1842 allowed a certain procedure to be followed, and that the Public Accounts Committee protested against such procedure. I do not remember whilst I was Financial Secretary to the Treasury any such protests being brought to my notice, nor do I remember as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee that we had to deal with any protests concerning this procedure. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee before I took that office, may be able to tell us the terms of the original Minute and whether he was responsible for making the protests against the then normal procedure. That would allow us to know why the Clause has been put in the Bill. Consuls have been going on for many generations, and Income Tax for more than a century. Let us know the reason and origin of this Clause. Let us know why it is put in, and at whose instance. Let us know what part the Public Accounts
Committee played in it; and why. I do not remember during the years 1927, 1928 and 1929 any protests being brought to my notice with respect to this procedure.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I have been asked to reply to the particular point which has been put with regard to the Public Accounts Committee. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee which made this recommendation, and he confirms what I have said, that such a recommendation was made and that we are carrying out the recommendation.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Can you give the reference.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I cannot.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): The point raised by the right hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) and the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) is quite simple. The duty of the Public Accounts Committee is to see that the revenue is collected exactly in the terms of the Act of Parliament in force, and that expenditure is also strictly in terms of the Act. During the time I was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee attention was drawn in the evidence of the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue to certain extra statutory reliefs; I do not know the precise year. Our recommendation was made, of course, against such reliefs, and that has always been the general attitude of the Public Accounts Committee. That is all that is involved in the matter.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: There is one point which has not been answered. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that already we get a certain amount of reciprocity under this Clause; in fact, that the advantages were on our side. He also said that we received reciprocity as far as the majority of countries are concerned. The majority of countries concerned have not an Income Tax of anything like 4s. 6d. in the pound and it is therefore absolutely impossible to get reciprocal treatment which is of any advantage to us. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will explain how we can get an advantage in most other countries when they have little or no Income Tax at all? Unless he is pre-
pared to accept the Amendment the Clause will merely give relief to foreigners in this country and take it away from certain British citizens.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no desire of being ungenerous in our treatment of the representatives of foreign Powers in this country but when we are asked to legislate on a matter on which some precision is necessary I must confess that I am still in the dark as to the exact extent of the law if the Clause is passed as it stands. We are discussing the matter under circumstances of quite unnecessary difficulty. The opening statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to the effect that subject to a few variations in exemptions, which he later explained, the Clause merely put into the Statute a practice ordained by a Treasury Minute of 1842. We ask for that Treasury Minute, and it is not forthcoming. We ask why it was necessary to put into this Bill a practice which for 100 years has gone on unquestioned until the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue drew attention to it a year or two ago after which the Public Accounts Committee drew attention to it in their report.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The statement of the right hon. Member is hardly accurate. Attention would be drawn to the matter by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, under the heading extra statutory reliefs, and, of course, the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue would draw attention to it.

5.0 p.m.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I misunderstood the President of the Board of Trade. It is the Comptroller and Auditor-General, whom I should expect to call attention to the matter, and I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. I thought he said that the person to draw attention to it was the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue. We ask why a practice which has existed for 100 years and has worked well, which is capable of elasticity, should be deprived of that elasticity by being put into statutory form? The answer that we are given is that it is because of a report of the Public Accounts Committee. We ask for a reference of the Public Accounts Committee. I have not the least doubt that it is available, and that if my two right hon.
and hon. Friends would keep the discussion going I could go to the Library and search for the reference, and that in course of time I could find it, and in this Committee examine exactly what the Minute did say and why exactly the Public Accounts Committee called attention to the matter. But surely that is information which the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to have placed at the disposal of this Committee to-day? I make serious complaints of the right hon. Gentleman coming to the House and telling us that this Clause is a mere translation into statutory form of a Minute, and then his saying that he cannot produce the Minute. He told us that this Clause is included in order to comply with a report of the Public Accounts Committee, and then he says, "We are unable to tell you where it is." We say, "Will you give us the report of the Public Accounts Committee?" I think there is more than one report in every Session, though it is a long time since I sat on the Public Accounts Committee. When we ask for the reference the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, "We cannot tell you even under what year to look."
Surely the right hon. Gentleman could have got that information when I asked him for it, and could have had it in his possession now? I shall be grateful to him if he would get it, because I should at least like to see what it is that the Public Accounts Committee said. Apart from this obscure and secret and hidden basis on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer founds the necessity for the Clause, may I repeat a question which was put by my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for the Dominions? To that question neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the President of the Board of Trade has given any reply so far. Do High Commissioners and their staffs and employés stand in all respects on a not less favourable footing than any foreign agency will do under this Clause? Apart from the High Commissioners, with whom I have to deal separately because they are assimilated with diplomatic representatives who have diplomatic privileges, do the agencies of the States of the British Empire not possessing any diplomatic privileges enjoy, and will they enjoy under this Clause, the same rights as the agency of any foreign Government? If not, I think that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer will find that he is opening a big question which, whatever the decision of this Committee, will not be allowed to rest, and that it is likely that the peace of the Treasury will be interrupted with remonstrances from these agencies against being treated less generously than foreign agencies of a similar character. Those are all points strictly germane to the issues hitherto discussed. There is another matter raised on one of the Amendments which is to be called, but I refrain from speaking on it now.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I last rose mainly for the purpose of answering a question put to me by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery). The position is that the High Commissioners, the agents and their staffs, are in a superior position to that of consuls or consular representatives, as they will be under this Clause. In fact they are in the position of embassies.

Sir PATRICK FORD: Following up the request of my right hon. Friends, I would ask what is the position of employés of the Russian Soviet Government in this country. It would appear from the Clause that in order to secure exemption from Income Tax there are three requisites—a man must not have the misfortune to be an Englishman, but must be a foreigner; he must be the official agent of a foreign State; and he must

not be engaged in employment which is carried on for the purpose of profit. Under the construction of the Soviet system every person who engages in trade on behalf of that State in this country must, I apprehend, be an official agent of his Government. That is the first requisite. Secondly, he is engaged by a foreign State and he is a foreigner. That complies with the second requisite. I have the gravest doubt whether employment under the Soviet system would be held by the Courts to be employment for the purpose of profit, because the principle of profit is not the principle upon which at any rate they pretend to conduct their business. It, therefore, appears that the agents for trade under the Soviet system in this country could claim exemption from Income Tax under this Clause, and as I apprehend that the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to go so far as that, and does not intend to allow all the oil merchants sent here by Soviet Russia to escape Income Tax, will he tell the Committee whether he has been assured by the Law Officers that I am wrong in my interpretation of the Clause, and that in fact these are not the kind of persons who would be exempted from Income Tax.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 241.

Division No. 349.]
AYES.
[5.9 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Dalkeith, Earl of
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Albery, Irving James
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Atholl, Duchess of
Dawson, Sir Philip
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Atkinson, C.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Long, Major Eric


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lymington, Viscount


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Macquisten, F. A.


Berry, Sir George
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Fermoy, Lord
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Marjoribanks, E. C.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Meller, R. J.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Boyce, H. L.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Bracken, B.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Briscoe, Richard George
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Muirhead, A. J.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hanbury, C.
O'Connor, T. J.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hartington, Marquess of
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Haslam, Henry C.
Peake, Captain Osbert


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Penny, Sir George


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Colville, Major D. J.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Purbrick, R.


Cowan, D. M.
Hurd, Percy A.
Ramsbotham, H.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Remer, John R.


Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Wells, Sydney R.


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Salman, Major I.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Womersley, W. J.


Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Tinne, J. A.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Todd, Capt. A. J.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Savery, S. S.
Train, J.



Skelton, A. N.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Turton, Robert Hugh
Captain Wallace and Sir Victor Warrender.


Smithers, Waldron
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morley, Ralph


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Hardie, George D.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Alpass, J. H.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Mort, D. L.


Ammon, Charles George
Hayday, Arthur
Moses, J. J. H.


Arnott, John
Hayes, John Henry
Muff, G.


Aske, Sir Robert
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Muggeridge, H. T.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Naylor, T. E.


Ayles, Walter
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Herriotts, J.
Noel Baker, P. J.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Oldfield, J. R.


Barnes, Alfred John
Hopkin, Daniel
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Batey, Joseph
Hore-Belisha, Leslie.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Bellamy, Albert
Horrabin, J. F.
Palin, John Henry


Benson, G.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Paling, Wilfrid


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Palmer, E. T.


Birkett, W. Norman
Isaacs, George
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Perry, S. F.


Bowen, J. W.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Johnston, Thomas
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Broad, Francis Alfred
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Pole, Major D. G.


Bromfield, William
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Potts, John S.


Brooke, W.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Price, M. P.


Brothers, M.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Kelly, W. T.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Kennedy, Thomas
Raynes, W. R.


Burgess, F. G.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Kinley, J.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Kirkwood, D.
Ritson, J.


Cameron, A. G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lathan, G.
Romeril, H. G.


Charleton, H. C.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Chater, Daniel
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Rowson, Guy


Cluse, W. S.
Lawrence, Susan
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lawson, John James
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Compton, Joseph
Leach, W.
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Cove, William G.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Sanders, W. S.


Daggar, George
Lees, J.
Sandham, E.


Dallas, George
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Sawyer, G. F.


Dalton, Hugh
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Scrymgeour, E.


Day, Harry
Longbottom, A. W.
Scurr, John


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Longden, F.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Dickson, T.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shield, George William


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lowth, Thomas
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Dukes, C.
Lunn, William
Shillaker, J. F.


Ede, James Chuter
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Simmons, C. J.


Egan, W. H.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Elmley, Viscount
McElwee, A.
Sinkinson, George


Forgan, Dr. Robert
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Freeman, Peter
MacLaren, Andrew
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
McShane, John James
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Gill, T. H.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Gillett, George M.
March, S.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Glassey, A. E.
Marcus, M.
Snell, Harry


Gossling, A. G.
Markham, S. F.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Gould, F.
Marley, J.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Marshall, Fred
Sorensen, R.


Granville, E.
Mathers, George
Stamford, Thomas W.


Gray, Milner
Messer, Fred
Stephen, Campbell


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Middleton, G.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mills, J. E.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Groves, Thomas E.
Milner, Major J.
Strauss, G. R.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Montague, Frederick
Sutton, J. E.




Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Wallhead, Richard C.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Watkins, F. C.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Thurtle, Ernest
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Tinker, John Joseph
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Toole, Joseph
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Wright, W. (Ruthergien)


Townend, A. E.
Wellock, Wilfred
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Welsh, James (Paisley)



Vaughan, D. J.
White, H. G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Viant, S. P.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T. Henderson.


Walker, J.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)



Wallace, H. W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I do so solely in order to afford the Government time to procure information with which they ought to have been provided when this discussion opened and which they have not yet offered to the Committee. I am sorry to have to repeat myself, but I shall do so as briefly as possible and only in order to make my meaning clear, and because I am probably speaking in the presence of some hon. Members who were not here during the previous discussion. This Clause is required, says the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in consequence of an observation made in a report of the Public Accounts Committee requiring that a practice founded on a Treasury Minute shall be made statutory. I have asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to produce the Minute. He says he cannot produce it. I put it to him: Does any such Minute exist, and if it does why cannot he produce it? If it exists, the Committee is entitled to it for purposes of comparison and because the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself cites it as the basis of the Clause and presents the Clause as its statutory equivalent.
We have asked repeatedly also for a reference to the report of the Public Accounts Committee on which we are told the Clause is founded, or in consequence of which the Clause is being introduced. Again, we are told that it exists somewhere, but neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the President of the Board of Trade can tell us in which report to look for this reference. That is not treating the Committee with fairness or with decency. I do not say that it is the fault of either of these right hon. Gentlemen, but it is very bad staff work to come down here, without answers to questions obviously arising on the very explanation which the Government themselves propose to tender. In order to give the Government time to procure
from the Treasury the Minute on which this Clause is founded, and time to ascertain in the Library the report of the Committee to which they are referring, I beg to move this Motion.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: This is a mere quibble. The Rules of the House prevent me from saying that this Motion is introduced for the purpose of delaying the business, but I never remember a Motion of the kind made on such a trivial pretext. Does the right hon. Gentleman assume that it is the business of the Minister, or even the business of the staff to which he referred, to anticipate every question which a Member of the Opposition may bring forward? If that were so, then we should have to bring down here the whole of the archives of the Department whose business happened to be under discussion at the moment. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the whole business of the Committee is to be suspended until the report of the Public Accounts Committee in which this reference is made, has been produced? I submit that that would be a waste of the time of this Committee. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade who was chairman of the Committee at the time gave his assurance to the right hon. Gentleman that the reference had been made.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I asked for the reference 20 minutes or half-an-hour ago.

Mr. SNOWDEN: My right hon. Friend, as I say, gave the assurance that such a reference has been made, and we shall produce it as soon as we conveniently can do so.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The right hon. Gentleman must not endeavour to escape from the very precise point which is directed against it by vague and general denunciations of the conduct of the Opposition nor must he seek to do so by what I think I may describe as insinuations against the conduct of the Chair.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the Motion which you, Mr. Young, have accepted is an abuse of the Rules of the House and thereby he directly accused the Ruling which you have given. Further, he went on to say that only the Rules of the House prevented him from describing this Motion as of a dilatory and obstructive character or words to that effect. I leave the Committee to judge if that is a decent way of evading the Rules, and if it is worthy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the Minister in charge of the Committee, to say something which he knows is contrary to the Rules of the House and which is a reflection, and has always been judged to be an unparliamentary reflection on hon. Members, and to cover it up and wrap it up in the specious pretence of saying, "I am prevented by the Rules of the House from saying so." All this is done by the right hon. Gentleman in the awkward shift to which he is reduced by the fact that he has cited a Minute but has not been able to say whether that Minute exists or not. He has cited a Minute, but he is not prepared to produce it. Is there any reason why this Minute should not be produced? The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the staff not being obliged to produce material in anticipation of every question which might be put by the Opposition. Of course they are not obliged to do so; but in the brief which is presented to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if there is a Clause which is intended to take the place of a Minute, it would be quite in accordance with the natural and ordinary process to have the particulars for which we ask. In saying so, I think I speak with the concurrence of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), and he and I can claim something like 10 or 11 years of combined experience in the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. J. JONES: In every party bar one.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am afraid the hon. Member's thoughts are away in other fields, far different from those with which we are now concerned. But I am not going to allow anything to draw the Committee away from the definite point against the right hon. Gentleman. Where is the Treasury Minute? If it exists, there is no conceivable reason why it should not be produced, because we are
told that that is the hypothesis on which the argument of the Government proceeds, and that the Clause simply renders the Treasury Minute statutory. The Clause is published, it is in the Bill, and how can it be suggested that there will be any detriment to the public interest in producing the Minute which is said to be the foundation of the Clause? Where is the Minute? It is more than an hour since this matter was first bruited in the Committee, and there has been ample time in which to obtain the Minute. Unless the right hon. Gentleman is able to produce the Minute this Motion is justified, because he has said that it is on the Minute that this Clause is founded, and, if there is no Minute, then the right hon. Gentleman has made a statement to the Committee—no doubt through error and inadvertency—which is found to be related at no notable point to the actual facts. There is not the slightest use in the right hon. Gentleman trying to escape from his difficulty by such methods as he has adopted. We are not in the least surprised at his methods, or at his harsh manner—and we shall probably have less reason to be afraid of him or of those who supported him, with every week that passes. We move this Motion as a protest against the refusal of the right hon. Gentleman to answer this specific question put to him and the failure to produce the Minute; and in the circumstances this Motion, which will be pressed to a Division, ought to commend itself to the general sense of the Committee.

Mr. J. JONES: I have sat in the House of Commons for nearly 12 years and on previous occasions I have seen Ministers belonging to both sides of the House unable to answer questions or to produce documents or other satisfactory evidence of their misconduct. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) ought to be the last to complain about other people's misdeeds, because he has a record for doing the things that he ought not to have done, and it is a case of the Devil rebuking sin when he proceeds to find fault with his successor in office. I, of course, do not pretend to know much about procedure. I have learned the Rules by breaking them, but most hon. Members opposite are up to the neck in rules. They would, perhaps, be more human if they forgot the Rules.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is breaking the Rules now. He must keep to the Motion to report Progress.

Mr. JONES: That is what I want to do—to report Progress and get on with the business. I protest against these clever gymnastics, these attempts to make people believe us when we say, "Thank God we are not like the other fellows." We get too much of that kind of thing in the House of Commons. Instead of playing these nasty tricks, from the mental point of view, and trying to throw dust in the eyes of the public, we ought to be trying to operate the machinery of Parliament, to get on with the business.

Sir DENNIS HERBERT: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has resisted this Motion on the plea that it is impossible to foresee every possible question that may arise in the course of a debate, and he says that to do so it would be necessary to bring down here the whole archives of the Treasury. He appears to have forgotten what I believe is a definite and well-acknowledged rule of procedure and debate in the House of Commons. When a Minister refers to a Government Paper, he is bound to produce that Paper. It is not a question of the Opposition having sprung this question on the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman has himself attempted to defend his Clause by quoting or referring to and relying upon a Treasury Minute, and under those circumstances he ought to have recognised that well-known rule that he must produce the document. His onslaught on my right hon. Friend for moving this Motion was far from justified, and if any onslaught should have been made, it should have been made against the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself.

Captain EDEN: The hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) complained that he wanted to get on with the business, but that complaint should have been addressed, not to this side, but to his own Treasury Bench. If hon. Members opposite had been in the House, they would have known that it was more than an hour ago that any right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) asked precisely for the information for which we are now asking. The Chancellor of the Exchequer based his whole case upon this Treasury
Minute. We did not ask him to do that. We were not even aware of the existence of the Minute. It is no use his pretending that the Opposition are asking him to bring down all the archives of the Treasury. We are asking him for only two documents, namely, the Minute upon which he based his case, and the Report of the Public Accounts Committee to which he referred. How can we judge whether the terms of this Clause are what he claims them to be, and whether they rightly fulfil the terms of the Minute, when he cannot produce it? He says that no more English persons would be exempted, but how are we to judge whether what the Treasury believes to be the result of this Clause is the same as is embodied in a Treasury Minute of 100 years ago?
I hope the Committee will refuse to be blunderbusted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's simulation of indignation, which would not impress anybody who had listened to the debate. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his fiery eye, but we are not at The Hague now, and though I have no doubt that, on seeing it for the first time, one would tremble, if he uses the flashing eye on wrong as well as right courses, one does not feel the same amount of terror as no doubt he wished to impart. I hope the Committee will refuse to be dragooned by this attempt to refuse the most reasonable request that has ever been made in these debates, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not comply, I trust we shall report Progress.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is it quite fair to say that we are unreasonable in asking for this Minute? In the first part of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he referred quite clearly to the fact that this Clause was merely a repetition of a Treasury Minute, that it was merely making statutory the conditions which existed in a Treasury Minute which had been in force for a great many years, but a few minutes later he made it clear that under this Clause a new set of people, who previously got exemption, are not now to get exemption—that is to say, the British employés in the offices of consuls acting for foreign countries. It is clear, therefore, that there is a deviation, and I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that he cannot have it both ways. It cannot be an exact copy of the Treasury Minute and at the same time
produce an innovation. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is not justified in saying that we are unreasonable in asking for a clear definition of the Treasury Minute in these circumstances.

Major COLFOX: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has adopted a course which we are getting used to associate with him, namely, he has endeavoured to cover up his gross misconduct by a display of fiery bad temper. But in doing so he is not advancing the cause which he seeks to promote, because he is obviously delaying the transaction of business by this totally unfounded refusal to produce a document to which he himself referred. It may well be that this Clause does embody the intentions of the document in question, but equally it may be that it does nothing of the sort, and unless and until the Committee are in possession of the document, we are quite in the dark as to whether or not the Clause is what it claims to be. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has absolutely contradicted his own statement. Either this Clause introduces an innovation or it does not. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated both to be the case, and obviously one or the other is incorrect.
It is impossible for us to discover which of the right hon. Gentleman's statements is the false one, and by merely exhibiting his bad temper, as he did a few moments ago, he is reducing the whole procedure of this Committee to an absolute farce, because he is in effect saying, "There is a Minute. I cannot quote it exactly, because I do not know where to look for it, but this Committee is bound to carry out my reading of that Minute. I do not know really what the Minute says. It may say one thing, or it may say another, but you have to accept this Clause as the interpretation of a Minute which, although it exists, I do not know where to find." Therefore, he is merely delaying the proceedings. There has been ample time since this question was raised for him to have obtained the information, and the right hon. Gentleman is treating the Committee with absolute disrespect by merely losing his temper.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: An hour and a-half ago I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would let us have this Minute. May I now repeat that question? I have never known a Minister, having a document to which any serious number of Members desired to have a reference, refuse to disclose it. It makes one think that there is no such Minute. If there is no such Minute, is it not better that he should say there is no Minute, so that we can get on with the business, or if there is a Minute, is it not better that we should have it? It is a very reasonable request.

Mr. REMER: Not only has the Chancellor of the Exchequer been rude and stubborn in the way in which he has treated the Committee, but he has shown the greatest inefficiency that I have ever seen any Chancellor of the Exchequer display. He has behind him two hon. Members who act, one as his Parliamentary private secretary and the other as the Parliamentary private secretary to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. When he discovered that the Committee desired this Treasury Minute and this reference to the Public Accounts Committee Report, surely, if he had wished to show courtesy to the Committee—which apparently he does not wish to show, and never does wish to show—he could have asked one of those hon. Members to go to the Treasury or to some other place for the information. For these reasons, I enter my strongest possible protest at the way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is treating us, and I hope my right hon. Friends will insist upon a Division.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I made what I thought was a reasoned and reasonable request to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, first of all across the Floor, a long time ago, and later when I moved this Motion. The right hon. Gentleman chose to treat my Motion as being an abuse of the forms of the House, and to lecture me on delaying the business. I have sat in the House even longer than the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. J. JONES: You have sat here too long.

HON. MEMBERS: So have you!

Mr. JONES: I shall be here when you are dead.

The CHAIRMAN: If hon. Members object to interruptions, it is my duty to deal with them. They should not interject in return.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: As I was saying, I have sat in this House even longer than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he is by this time an old Member of our body. I cannot remember an occasion on which a Minister, having referred, as the occasion for his action, to a Report of the Public Accounts Committee, declined on a polite request to give his inquirer the reference to the Report which he has mentioned. Is it not reasonable that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer or a Minister says, "We took this action in pursuance of a specific recommendation of a Parliamentary Committee," we should ask to be informed what is the Report in which we shall find the recommendations in question? The Chancellor of the Exchequer refuses to give it. The President of the Board of Trade says it is there, but he does not give it. The right hon. Gentleman does not make the slightest effort to meet the wishes of the Committee, the honest and reasonable wishes, the politely and reasonably expressed wishes. He could have had the information long ago. He could have sent to the Library and searched within the year within which the Report is presumably to be found, and certainly the President of the Board of Trade could have fixed the reference,

and they could have given it to us without forcing us to these measures.

The other document for which we have asked is a Minute which the Chancellor of the Exchequer cited himself. He said he could not be expected to know all the questions which we should ask. It has been already pointed out to him. Nobody on this side knew anything of the existence of such a Minute. It is the right hon. Gentleman who has cited the Minute. Having cited it, why has he not brought it to us? If the Minute be the whole foundation of the Clause, why are we not enabled to see it? Again I put a specific question, and I ask for a specific answer. Is there such a Minute, or was the right hon. Gentleman under a misapprehension when he told us that there was a Minute which had been in existence for 100 years? To accuse me of an abuse of the Rules of the House is in itself disorderly. It is the right hon. Gentleman who is treating the Committee with a contempt that I have never known to be shown by any other Minister in a responsible position, and he is the last man who has any right to make such a charge against his opponents. I repeat before I sit down: is there such a Minute?

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 136; Noes, 248.

Division No. 350.]
AYES.
[5.48 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cranborne, Viscount
Haslam, Henry C.


Albery, Irving James
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)


Atholl, Duchess of
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Atkinson, C.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hurd, Percy A.


Berry, Sir George
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Iveagh, Countess of


Bird, Ernest Roy
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.


Boyce, H. L.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Bracken, B.
Fermoy, Lord
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Fielden, E. B.
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Briscoe, Richard George
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Long, Major Eric


Buchan, John
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Lymington, Viscount


Buckingham, Sir H.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macquisten, F. A.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Margesson, Captain H. D.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Meller, R. J.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Mond, Hon. Henry


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hanbury, C.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Colville, Major D. J.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hartington, Marquess of
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Muirhead, A. J.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


O'Connor, T. J.
Savery, S. S.
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Skelton, A. N.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Peake, Captain Osbert
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Penny, Sir George
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wells, Sydney R.


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Smithers, Waldron
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Pilditch, Sir Philip
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Spender-Clay, Colonel. H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Ramsbotham, H.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Womersley, W. J.


Remer, John R.
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.



Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Tinne, J. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Todd, Capt. A. J.
Captain Sir George Bowyer and Captain Wallace.


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Train, J.



Salmon, Major I.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gillett, George M.
Lunn, William


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Glassey, A. E.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Gossling, A. G.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Alpass, J. H.
Gould, F.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Ammon, Charles George
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
McElwee, A.


Arnott, John
Granville, E.
McEntee, V. L.


Aske, Sir Robert
Gray, Milner
MacLaren, Andrew


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)


Ayles, Walter
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Groves, Thomas E.
McShane, John James


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Barnes, Alfred John
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
March, S.


Batey, Joseph
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Marcus, M.


Bellamy, Albert
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Markham, S. F.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Marley, J.


Benson, G.
Harbord, A.
Marshall, Fred


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Hardie, George D.
Mathers, George


Birkett, W. Norman
Harris, Percy A.
Messer, Fred


Blindell, James
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Middleton, G.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Hayes, John Henry
Mills, J. E.


Bowen, J. W.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Milner, Major J.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Montague, Frederick


Broad, Francis Alfred
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Herriotts, J.
Morley, Ralph


Bromfield, William
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Brooke, W.
Hopkin, Daniel
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Brothers, M.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Horrabin, J. F.
Mort, D. L.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Muff, G.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Isaacs, George
Muggeridge, H. T.


Burgess, F. G.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Naylor, T. E.


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Johnston, Thomas
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Cameron, A. G.
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Noel Baker, P. J.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Chater, Daniel
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Palin, John Henry


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Paling, Wilfrid


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Palmer, E. T.


Compton, Joseph
Kelly, W. T.
Perry, S. F.


Cove, William G.
Kennedy, Thomas
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Cowan, D. M.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Daggar, George
Kinley, J.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Dallas, George
Kirkwood, D.
Pole, Major D. G.


Dalton, Hugh
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Potts, John S.


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Lathan, G.
Price, M. P.


Day, Harry
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Dickson, T.
Lawrence, Susan
Raynes, W. R.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lawson, John James
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Dukes, C.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Ede, James Chuter
Leach, W.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Ritson, J.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lees, J.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Egan, W. H.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Romeril, H. G.


Elmley, Viscount
Lindley, Fred W.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Freeman, Peter
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Rowson, Guy


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Longbottom, A. W.
Russell Richard John (Eddisbury)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Longden, F.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Gill, T. H.
Lowth, Thomas
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)




Sanders, W. S.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Watkins, F. C.


Sandham, E.
Sorensen, R.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Sawyer, G. F.
Stamford, Thomas W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Scrymgeour, E.
Stephen, Campbell
Wellock, Wilfred


Scurr, John
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Sutton, J. E.
West, F. R.


Shield, George William
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
White, H. G.


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Shillaker, J. F.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Simmons, C. J.
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Tillett, Ben
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Sinkinson, George
Tinker, John Joseph
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Toole, Joseph
Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Townend, A. E.
Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)


Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Treveiyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Vaughan, D. J.
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Viant, S. P.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Walker, J.



Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Wallace, H. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Snell, Harry
Wallhead, Richard C.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. T. Henderson.


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 16, line 8, to leave out the words, "for the purposes of profit."
The object of this Amendment is to get something from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I began this afternoon full of hope and optimism that we might be able to get something out of him. That was on a complicated matter, and my hope was not realised. This is quite a simple matter. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer does not generally put words into a Clause unless they have some meaning. There are at least two possible meanings to these words, and other hon. Members may find other meanings. Are these words put in for the purpose of narrowing the Clause or for widening it? They can only be understood if they are taken in connection with the fact that under this Sub-section we are dealing with certain official agents who are employed on the staffs of "any trade, business or other undertaking." It is conceivable that these words are added to make the position narrower than it need be. It has been pointed out from time to time that there are certain agencies who would employ people under this Clause and who might be carrying on "trade, business or other undertaking" which is not carried on for the purposes of direct profit.
6.0 p.m.
I hope that I shall not frighten hon. Members opposite if I take Russia as an illustration. Supposing that the business agency of the Russian Government in this country, employing people such as would come under this Clause, deliberately tried to run their business so as to avoid a profit that could be shown in any sale merely for the purpose of widening their trading interests on some other lines. It
is conceivable that they might be able to act on such lines. They would be actually showing no direct profit, and, with these words in, they would be able to say that they did not come under this Clause. It is clear that the words have been put in for some purpose which we have not yet been able to discover. Take the case of a co-operative society which has some connection with a foreign country. There is a business which, on the surface, is not run directly for profit, yet in actual fact such societies do produce profits. There are friendly societies, such as building societies, which quite conceivably might be attached to some foreign consular body such as this. We are not legislating in a narrow sense, because this Clause is widely drawn, and these words are clearly intended to cover the widest possible form of business.
I wish to know whether these words have been placed in in order to protect the State and to get as much money as we can, or for the purpose of giving further exemption to foreigners? That is what we have to find out. So far as the main purpose of the Clause is concerned, we have ascertained that it is to help foreign businesses in this country as against the business carried on by our own people. That has been clearly admitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, and I wish to know whether these words are inserted for the deliberate purpose of making things still more difficult for our own people and letting a still larger number of foreigners off this burden. This is not a matter of minor importance, and I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) was not able to be present to move the Amendment himself, and I
apologise to the Committee for not having been able to put the case with the same clarity that he would have done.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: As has been said very often in the course of the debate, it is proposed that the official agents of a consulate shall be exempt from this taxation if they are not employed in connection with any trade, business or undertaking carried on for profit. It is most important that these words should be inserted. May I give an illustration? The business of a consul is very largely connected with trade, but he is not carrying on trade for his own personal profit. His profits can hardly be regarded as the profits of trade. If the Amendment were accepted, it is extremely likely that a consul would be regarded as being engaged in trade, and therefore would be denied the relief which it is proposed to give him. I would point out that these words are taken exactly from the Finance Act of 1923, which was passed when, I believe, the late Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer. They then dealt with the relief of Dominion representatives. These very words are found in Section 19 of the Finance Act, 1923:
in any trade, business, or other undertaking carried on for the purposes of profit.
May I make this further point, although it is a legal point? It is quite conceivable that the Law Courts might construe the word "undertaking," which will be left in if this Amendment be carried, as a business undertaking carried on for the purposes of profit. In spite of the eloquent and lucid speech of the hon. Member who submitted this Amendment, I really do not understand what the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) had in mind in putting down the Amendment, and I regret that he was not here to tell us what his object really was. For the reasons I have given I cannot accept the Amendment. It would be likely to exclude from relief the class of people we are anxious to bring within the scope of this relief.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: In neither his preliminary explanation nor in the explanation which he has just given did the Chancellor of the Exchequer deal with the case of a consul who is not in receipt of a definite salary. The right hon. Gentleman must know that there are many consuls representing
minor foreign countries in small seaports of this kingdom who do not receive a definite salary. They receive official emoluments in the form of payment for the work which they do in their official capacity as Consuls. The right hon. Gentleman has not said whether in that case the consul will be free of Income Tax or will not. In his first explanation he used the term "official emoluments," but in a later explanation he spoke of "official salary," and those two terms are not by any means synonymous.
Let us take the case of a consul representing some small second-rate Power in some small seaport in this country. He may be a native of the country he represents, or he may be a British citizen. The amount of work for him at that port is not sufficient to warrant the country he represents paying him an official salary, but when a ship flying the flag of that country comes into that port it has to be cleared by the consul. That is official work for which he receives an official emolument, although it is not a salary. When the ship leaves it has to be cleared again, and that is also official work, but it is not rewarded by an official salary. In many of these ports it is part of the consul's duty to visa passports, for which he receives a fee. Is that an official emolument or is it not? Are we to consider that a consul in receipt of no official salary, although he does official work for which he receives official emoluments, is not to benefit under this Clause and will be considered liable for Income Tax upon those emoluments?
The right hon. Gentleman is shaking his head, but it seems to me that it is going to be very difficult to differentiate between the emoluments which he receives for clearing a ship and the emoluments he receives for visaing passports and a commission which he might receive on that ship being coaled—it may be an illegal commission, and probably it is, but at the same time he receives it through his connection with that foreign country and the work which he does for the ship. The possible effects of this Clause require a considerable amount of elucidation. It may be quite true that from the point of view of the Treasury the amount of money involved is infinitesimal, but at the same time we may cause a great deal of discontent and ill-feeling among traders in these ports if it is known that because
of a man's connection with a foreign country he is entitled to receive emoluments on which he is absolved from paying Income Tax.

Major COLFOX: I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the opinion of the Public Accounts Committee on this matter, because although I know how difficult it is for him ever to admit the possibility of his having committed an indiscretion, I would give him the opportunity, now that an interval has elapsed, to produce the document which his peculiar temperament made it impossible for him to produce just now. There is an old saying that the devil looks after his own. It is not for me to comment upon that, nor, of course, would it be in order or, indeed, suitable to liken the Chancellor to that hero of fiction; but it did occur to me when I first saw this Clause that the Chancellor was looking after his own friends, namely, the traders of Soviet Russia.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dunnico): The Amendment before the Committee raises the question whether the words "for the purposes of profit" shall remain or be deleted from the Bill.

Major COLFOX: Exactly, and the traders of Soviet Russia are people who ostensibly, at any rate according to their own profession, are not trading for the purposes of profit. Therefore, it seems to me, or it did seem to me on first reading this Clause, that the particular reason for inserting the words "undertaking carried on for the purposes of profit" was that the Bolshevist friends of the Chancellor would not have to pay any Income Tax in this country. If that is the effect of the Clause, as I submit it is, then I think all who are not friends of the Bolshevists must agree that it is a most undesirable result to follow from any legislation passed by this House. I see no reason why the subjects of one particular country should be placed in specially favoured conditions, particularly when they have behaved as the Bolshevists have. For these reasons I strongly support the deletion of the words "for the purposes of profit" because I want to include as few people as possible under this exemption from the payment of Income Tax.
There is another reason which makes it desirable to omit these words, and it is
that it might happen that some consular official might be carrying on an undertaking which might have made a profit one year and sustained a loss in the following year. In such a case the person concerned would be continually transferred from one category to another. In the year in which he made a profit his whole income would be subject to Income Tax; whereas in the following year he might make no profit at all, and then he would be covered because he would not be carrying on an undertaking for the purposes of profit, and the whole of his income would be exempt from Income Tax. If those words are allowed to remain in the Bill you will never have any continuity or stability, and the result will be a constant transfer of persons from one category to another. I would like to be informed what the Public Accounts Committee think about this matter, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will now condescend to produce to the Committee the document to which he has alluded.

Mr. ALBERY: I have listened carefully to the reasons which have been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for refusing to accept this Amendment, but it does not seem to me that the right hon. Gentleman has, up to the present moment, given the information which we require. So far as I know, there is only one foreign State which has an official agency in this country for carrying on trade or business. It is quite obvious that by moving this Amendment we want to discover what the position of that particular foreign agency is going to be with reference to Income Tax matters. Perhaps the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will give us some detailed information on that subject and if he will do so I am sure it will very much shorten the debate on this point.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I support the request which has been put forward for some further information about a certain class of official agencies. This Clause exempts from Income Tax persons employed in the service of a foreign State so long as they do not carry on any trade or business for the purposes of profit. There are a number of official agencies which exist for the purpose of carrying on official propaganda. There are perfectly proper agencies like the educa-
tional agencies maintained in London by the French Government through the French Universities, and we have our own library of information in New York which may be called an official agency. Besides all these quite well recognised educational, cultural propaganda agencies there are other agencies existing for the purpose of carrying on political propaganda such as the Soviet Government and the Third International, which is connected with the Soviet Government. Does this Clause mean that any person employed in this country by a foreign Government to conduct propaganda in the Press of this country will be exempt from Income Tax on the salary he is paid by the foreign Government to conduct that political propaganda on the ground that he is not conducting it for his own personal profit? Is it the position that every person from the officer of an educational institution to the political propagandist paid a salary by the Third International is ipso facto exempt from Income Tax?

Mr. HASLAM: We are carrying on this debate in circumstances of considerable difficulty. This Clause is based upon a certain Treasury Minute which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has refused to produce.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The arguments which are now being used by the hon. Member would be more appropriate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." This Amentment deals exclusively with the omission of the words "for the purposes of profit."

Mr. HASLAM: I submit that those words have an important bearing upon the question which I am discussing. Before we are able to judge of the proper meaning of those words, surely the Committee ought to be put in possession of the fullest information, because that has always been the practice hitherto maintained by revenue officials in collecting taxes from these particular persons Fears have been expressed as to what may happen under this Clause in regard to the agents of the Russian Government who, in this country, are carrying on various activities of one sort and another. We want to know whether those Russian agents are to be exempt from the payment of their Income Tax or not. That point is not clear from what the
Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, and we want a clear understanding as to what the position of those agents will be under this Clause.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot see what bearing the arguments now being used by the hon. Member have upon this Amendment, which deals with the particular point of the omission of the words "for the purposes of profit."

Mr. HASLAM: The omission of the words "for the purposes of profit" would undoubtedly limit the scope of this Clause. If the Amendment is carried, the Clause would read:
not being a department or agency which carries on any trade, business or other undertaking.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The omission of those words would not widen the scope of the Section.

Mr. HASLAM: I want to provide by this Amendment that all these people will come under the Income Tax law, and surely I am entitled to argue whether this Amendment achieves that object. Take, for example, a foreign propagandist. Is he carrying on an undertaking for the purposes of profit? A foreign propagandist might say that he was not carrying on an undertaking for the purposes of profit, and he might claim to be let off the payment of Income Tax. The members of the Russian Trade Delegation might very well say that they are not carrying on trade for the purposes of profit and they might take shelter under the co-operative definition, and say that they are not carrying on trade for the purposes of profit. I submit that all these questions ought to be answered, and the Committee ought to be placed in possession of this information. We ought to know definitely what are the objects of the Government in relation to the particular agencies of the Russian Government. Do the Government want to let these people off the payment of their Income Tax?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not want to go over again the ground which has been covered by previous speakers, but I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider a difficulty which occurs to my mind, and one against which, I think, it is necessary to guard when we are laying down a rigid statutory definition. I quite
understand the desire of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to provide that consuls, and those employed as official agents, shall not have their salaries treated in the same way as money earned by trade. We have to deal with a world in which trade is no longer in the hands of private individuals alone, but trading has become the function of Governments in more than one country. Some of my hon. Friends have argued this question as if Russia stood alone in this respect, but it is quite true that the Governments of other countries which do not hold the same doctrines as the Russian Government are carrying on certain trades.
What is to be the position of a trade carried on by a Government—of an agent carrying on a trade, not for profit, but in competition with British traders who cannot live unless they make a profit? Do you really mean that, if the work which the foreigner is doing on behalf of his Government is of the same kind as the work which the British subject is doing in competition with him, the foreign agent shall go free of taxation while the British agent shall pay taxation? Let me try to illustrate my argument. In the case of the American Government Mercantile Marine, are the agents of the American Government, if any, established in this country for the purposes of the American Mercantile Marine, to be exempt from taxation which the agents of a British shipping company engaged in the same trade would have to pay? The right hon. Gentleman may say that that is guarded against by the inclusion of the words which we are proposing to leave out, but I would ask hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway if that is so.

Mr. LEIF JONES: I think it is a safeguard.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Then I invite the right hon. Gentleman to consider it with me and with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. JONES: I am following the right hon. Gentleman's argument most closely.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am greatly encouraged by the interest of the right hon. Gentleman. Would it be a good argument to say that the Government shipping of America is conducted for profit? If so, it has long been condemned. It has never made a profit in
any year. It is maintained by immense direct and indirect subsidies, and no American statesman, if he were called upon to justify it before Congress, would for one moment think of saying, "I did this in order that the Government might make a profit." They do not need a profit; they have no intention of making a profit; it has been proved that they cannot make a profit. They are doing it in order to establish an American Mercantile Marine; they are doing it for a high political purpose, and not for profit at all. I venture to think that the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken in supposing that to say that it must be for profit is a safeguard against that kind of competition, carried on for quite other reasons, which, as I have said, would not only not encourage, but would not permit any American defender of the system in his own Congress to justify it on the ground that it was, or was likely to be, a profit-making concern.
Again, take the case of Australia a little time ago. I think that their purpose was twofold. It was not to make a profit. They never did make a profit. If they ever had made a profit, the idea of profit would have been wholly subsidiary to other and more immediate purposes which the establishment of a State shipping line was intended to further. It was intended to create an Australian Marine which should be subservient to the promotion of Australian industry. Profit was a matter of secondary concern; the purpose was to facilitate Australian trade and to break down what is called the British shipping ring. But would you really, in such a case, say that the establishment of a State-controlled, State-organised and State-subsidised line of shipping by Australia, South Africa or any other Dominion, in competition with an established British line of shipping, should be favoured by the exemption of its agents in that competition from an Income Tax which the agents of British lines have to pay, when the purpose of the competition was to cut into the British trade and substitute another trade for it?
Take, as a third case, that of Russia. A good deal of the trade that is being done with this country has, we are told, been done through the Russian co-
operative societies on the one side, and our own co-operative societies on the other. Our own co-operative societies, for reasons with which most of those who have sat for any length of time in this House are familiar, are not subject to Income Tax because they are not profit-making concerns in the Income Tax sense; but are the agents of a Russian trading concern, working in a similar or parallel field, to be exempt from that tax on their salaries which every agent of an English co-operative society will have to pay? Surely, these things are not intended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and yet, surely, that would be the effect of these limiting words,
for the purposes of profit.
As long as the competition is carried on for other purposes than profit, as I read the Clause, the agent escapes the taxation which the agents of the British undertaking in the same line of trade and working under similar conditions—sometimes, perhaps, in complementary trade, sometimes in competitive trade—would still remain obliged to pay. I have taken rather more time than I meant to take, in the effort to put my case before the Chancellor of the Exchequer in such a way that it shall not be open to him to think for a moment that I am not arguing a serious question, and arguing it seriously, but merely trying to waste his time or the time of the Committee.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman has raised what he has described as an important point, and the very courteous way in which he has spoken prompts me to reply. Let us look at the words of the Clause. Sub-section (3) says that:
The expression 'official agent' means a person not being a consul, who is employed on the staff of any consulate, official department or agency of a foreign state, not being a department or agency which carries on any trade, business or other undertaking for the purposes of profit.
The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) took two quite opposite cases, one of which, as I understood it, he would regard as being entitled to relief from Income Tax, such as scientific missions——

Lord E. PERCY: I did not mean that I thought that they were entitled to relief.

Mr. SNOWDEN: At any rate, the Noble Lord referred to them quite emphatically. It is intended that scientific research of such a character shall come within the definition of an undertaking not carried on for purposes of profit. The second case, namely, that of a political agency in this country, would, I think, be clearly excluded by the words of this Clause, because it must be an agency which is established by the foreign State. If we take the case of Russia, which has obtruded a great deal into our debate this afternoon, one cannot imagine that the Russian Government would officially and openly establish an agency in this country for the purposes of political propaganda, and, therefore, the employés of such an organisation would, I assume, if they were resident in this country, be called upon to pay Income Tax. With regard to the cases raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), I can inform him that the agents of the American Shipping Board in this country did pay Income Tax, because that work was regarded as coming within what is meant by the words of this Clause. The right hon. Gentleman's second case was that of Australia——

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. It must be remembered that hitherto the exemptions have rested on no statutory basis. The foreign agency could go before no court. It was within the discretion of the Revenue authorities to refuse exemption in any case where they thought that it would be an abuse. It is quite a different thing to make it a statutory obligation, which the foreigner can plead before the courts. Are you satisfied that the words which you have put into the Bill would preserve your right to exclude these people? It is not a question of whether they have been excluded, but of whether they will be excluded.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I am no lawyer, but I cannot imagine that any court of law would take the view that a State agency such as the Australian Commonwealth Shipping Lines or the American Mercantile Marine was not a business or undertaking carried on for profit. The
right hon. Gentleman says that they may make no profit, and, therefore, would not come within the operation of these words, but, surely, the fact that they might make no profit in a particular year, or over a succession of years, does not remove them from the category of a business that is carried on for profit.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: My contention went further than that. It is not merely that they do not make a profit; it is that they themselves would never have defended the establishment of their State lines on the ground of profit. They were founded for quite other reasons. They were carried on regardless of profit. Profit might be a test of success, but it was never the purpose for which they were carried on.

Mr. SNOWDEN: That might not have been the motive for their establishment, but I venture to submit that that does not remove them from the category of business concerns carried on for profit. About the other case which was put by the right hon. Gentleman, namely, the case of the Australian Commonwealth Shipping Lines, there is even less ambiguity than in the case of the United States Shipping Board. These words, as I pointed out a little time back, are taken from Section 19 of the Finance Act of 1923. That was the Section which gave relief to High Commissioners and Agents-General, and it excluded from relief any person employed in any trade, business or undertaking carried on for the purposes of profit. Therefore, we have introduced nothing new, but we are extending to these agents of foreign Governments precisely the same conditions which were applied in Section 19 of the Finance Act, 1923. I think there is some little confusion as between the exemption of an undertaking and the exemption of the staffs of the undertaking. It is only a question of the exemption or relief from liability of the staffs, and not of the business itself. I think the right hon. Gentleman rather fell into that confusion when he was using co-operative societies as an illustration. Co-operative societies may be exempt from payment. Of course, they are not supposed to make a profit. That is a very debatable point which I am not going into now. That applies to the societies, but the officials, those who are employed by the co-operative societies
are not exempt from the payment of Income Tax. Therefore, the case between them and the application here in this Clause seems to me to be fairly analogous.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Would the agents of the Soviet Trade Agency, which is an organ of the Government, be exempt or not?

Mr. SNOWDEN: No, I have said that already. There are three. There is the chief trade representative and two of his principal officials with diplomatic status.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Does not this Clause exclude any other agent?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not think so. I think the words "trade or business carried on for profit" very clearly and definitely bring them within the scope.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman says that, although it may be an organ of the Government, yet, because it is carried on for profit, it will not come within the Clause, nor will any of the agents of that body living in this country be exempt from Income Tax. But can he really say that? The whole basis of a co-operative society is that it should not be carried on for the purpose of profit, that it should be carried on for the benefit of its members.

Mr. SNOWDEN: How can that possibly be the case? Even if it is not carried on for profit in the ordinary sense of the term, it may be carried on so as to produce a dividend for its members.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If they give a dividend to non-members of the society, that is a trading profit, but the whole basis of the Income Tax exemption on dividends to members is that they are merely a discount, the same sort of discount that an individual gets from his tailor if he is able to pay cash. It is because it is a discount and not a dividend out of profits that co-operative societies claim to be exempt from Income Tax. This Clause exempts only the agents of Government bodies which carry on any trade, business or other undertaking for the purposes of profit. It is not a question of whether they will make a profit or not but of what is the
object of the business. Is it carried on for the purpose of a profit? The Commonwealth Shipping Line was not carried on for the purpose of a profit. It was publicly announced that it was carried on for the purpose of breaking what they called a shipping ring and trying to secure lower and fairer freights for Australian shippers. Whether they made a loss or a profit was quite immaterial to them. Their justification for going on after they had made a loss was not that the loss was accidental and that they were going to make a profit later on, but that they should have cheap freights for the Australian people. Such a body requires a large staff in this country. A business carried on like that might easily have 30 or 40 people employed in this country, and some of them would be highly paid. This Clause, as far as I can see, is going to give those highly-paid people an actual preference over their competitors, who are the representatives of English or other non-official non-State trading organisations. [Interruption.]
It is all very well to say it is not. It only is not if those organisations are being carried on for the purpose of profit. It is really difficult to construe those words. [Interruption.] That was a totally different thing. That was to put the Dominion representatives in the same position as consuls and representatives of foreign powers. It was not to give them a preference over people here. It was to put them on a level with the representatives of foreign Powers, and, if that was too generous, it was, at any rate, generous to our own people. But the generosity of the right hon. Gentleman is not to inure for the benefit of our own people, but of those who are competing with our own people. The right hon. Gentleman says the representatives of the Commonwealth did pay and, therefore, they will not be exempt under this Clause. They only paid because they were not covered by the Treasury Minute. If they are covered by this Clause, they will not pay. We want to know if the right hon. Gentleman is right in arguing that, because they paid in the past, they will have to pay in the future. We cannot judge that unless he will produce the Treasury Minute. If he produces that, we shall see whether they paid because of the words
of the Treasury Minute, and whether they will have to pay in future because of the words of the Bill. So long as he withholds from us the Treasury Minute, it is impossible to follow his argument. So far as he has made any sort of case, it all depends on the meaning of the words "for the purposes of profit." That may well be a matter of national policy and not of pounds, shillings and pence. In Australia and America it certainly has been a matter of national policy and not of pounds, shillings and pence, and consequently, I do net believe for a moment that these words are effective for the purpose for which they are put in.

Major G. DAVIES: The Chancellor of the Exchequer just now said that he was no lawyer. It would be unparliamentary to give the lie direct to that categorical statement, but, if that be the case, surely we are entitled to the advice of a Law Officer, who can make a definite statement, not as to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends, but as to what the Clause actually conveys. This matter has largely revolved around maritime questions, and I suppose, if the Chancellor is not a lawyer, he is certainly not a sea lawyer. We can afford to be generous when times are good, but when times are had it seems a short-sighted policy to bring in Measures which admittedly are going to help foreigners and be a handicap to our own people. It does not matter whether these are big maritime organisations whose aim is to break a shipping ring. We may be a great shipping ring. Apparently, the House of Commons is in favour of coal rings, but that is another story. We are all in favour of profitable industry to employ our own people. It seems to be the height of folly to take any risk in passing a Measure like this which seems to be giving the foreigners additional advantages and putting additional disadvantages on our own people. We are very much disturbed, because the Chancellor is not a lawyer, and these are not mere quibbles but legal points of the first importance. A little earlier it would have been the right policy for him to have had the Minute in one hand and the resolution of the Public Accounts Committee in the other, and on this occasion he should have had, dexter, the Attorney-General and, sinister, the Solicitor-General in order to give us the
benefit of their legal advice on a matter on which the Chancellor admits that he is not an expert. Many of the matters which have been brought up are very vital. We are all at one in what we intend to do. The question is what are we doing, and the Chancellor is unable to tell us what it is that he wants us to do. We are entitled to the expert advice of the Law Officers of the Crown.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his courteous references to me. He said he wished to hear something further as to the purpose of the Amendment. It is to endeavour to get from the Government a clear legal definition of precisely what trades and businesses they intend to exclude or to include under this Clause. There are three forms of business which the right hon. Gentleman has not yet dealt with. What about a foreign railway, which may quite conceivably be called a trade or business but whose fundamental purpose is the military defence of the country, and yet it may really be an agency for the purpose of obtaining travellers. A foreign country may make a very good claim that it is really a business concern. It is quite likely that under this particular Clause there will be scores of foreign firms who will be able to get exemption. That is one of the reasons why we ask that this Amendment should be accepted. It is a very great pity that the Chancellor has refused to accept the Amendment, which would make it much easier for his Department to operate in the way they have operated hitherto and not give these exemptions from taxation unless they were given to cases clearly concerning a foreign Government, and not in cases of business. If the right hon. Gentleman is still obdurate and refuses to accept the Amendment, I hope that we shall divide.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: I wish to put one last point to the Chancellor. He prayed in aid Section 19 of the Act of 1923, but it gives no support whatever to his contention. If he will compare it with what he is doing in the present Clause, he will find the operation of the two Clauses is quite different. The
present Clause gives an exemption to a class of people engaged in a class of business. What we are claiming is that that Clause is too widely expressed, that it gives an exemption to the representatives engaged in classes of business too widely defined, and that they ought to be further restricted. The Section of the Act of 1923 is of an entirely opposite kind The first part of Section 19 extends to High Commissioners and Agents-General the same class of exemption that is given to diplomats, but the Sub-section to which the right hon. Gentleman refers goes on to restrict the operation of that Sub-section. Here it is the opposite. In the Act of 1923 it says that, whatever is done for High Commissioners and Agents-General—
Nothing in this Section shall operate to grant relief from income Tax (including Super-tax) in respect of income arising from the employment of any person in any trade, business, or other undertaking carried on for the purposes of profit.
Perhaps with the knowledge of recent experience the restrictive clause ought to have gone further but it is quite possible, too, that, if there was any virtue in that Treasury Minute on which the executive acted, these employés in occupations of the kind described by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) would have been liable to Income Tax. It is possible that it did not go far enough, but it did not give any relief whatsoever to people engaged as representatives of co-operative societies. It acted to restrict relief already given by a preceding section. The operation of the two Sub-sections is entirely different, and I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the very least will consider this with a view, if the contention is correct, of introducing an Amendment on Report. If he will read those Clauses himself, I am quite certain that he will come to the same conclusion.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 278; Noes, 147.

Division No. 351.]
AYES.
[7.7 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Moses, J. J. H.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Muff, G.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Harbord, A.
Muggeridge, H. T.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Hardie, George D.
Murnin, Hugh


Ammon, Charles George
Harris, Percy A.
Naylor, T. E.


Arnott, John
Haycock, A. W.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Aske, Sir Robert
Hayday, Arthur
Noel Baker, P. J.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hayes, John Henry
Oldfield, J. R.


Ayles, Walter
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Barnes, Alfred John
Herriotts, J.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Palin, John Henry.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Hollins, A.
Palmer, E. T.


Bellamy, Albert
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Horrabin, J. F.
Perry, S. F.


Benson, G.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Birkett, W. Norman
Isaacs, George
Potts, John S.


Blindell, James
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Price, M. P.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Pybus, Percy John


Bowen, J. W.
Johnston, Thomas
Quibell, D. J. K.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Bromfield, William
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Raynes, W. R.


Brooke, W.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Brothers, M.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Ritson, J.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Kelly, W. T.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, Thomas
Romeril, H. G.


Burgess, F. G.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Kinley, J.
Rowson, Guy


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Kirkwood, D.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Cameron, A. G.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Charleton, H. C.
Lathan, G.
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Chater, Daniel
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Sanders, W. S.


Church, Major A. G.
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Sandham, E.


Clarke, J. S.
Lawrence, Susan
Sawyer, G. F.


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, John James
Scrymgeour, E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Scurr, John


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Leach, W.
Sexton, James


Compton, Joseph
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Cove, William G.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Shield, George William


Cowan, D. M.
Lees, J.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Daggar, George
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Shillaker, J. F.


Dallas, George
Lindley, Fred W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Dalton, Hugh
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Simmons, C. J.


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Longbottom, A. W.
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Day, Harry
Longden, F.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Sinkinson, George


Dickson, T.
Lowth, Thomas
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lunn, William
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Dukes, C.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Ede, James Chuter
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Scaham)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Edmunds, J. E.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smith, Ronnie (Penistone)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
McElwee, A.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Egan, W. H.
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Elmley, Viscount
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Snell, Harry


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
McShane, John James
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Freeman, Peter
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
March, S.
Sorensen, R.


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Marcus, M.
Stamford, Thomas W.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Markham, S. F.
Stephen, Campbell


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Marley, J.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Gibbins, Joseph
Marshall, Fred
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)
Mathers, George
Strauss, G. R.


Gill, T. H.
Matters, L. W.
Sullivan, J.


Gillett, George M.
Messer, Fred
Sutton, J. E.


Glassey, A. E.
Middleton, G.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Gossling, A. G.
Millar, J. D.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Gould, F.
Mills, J. E.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Milner, Major J.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Montague, Frederick
Thurtle, Ernest


Granville, E.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Tillett, Ben


Gray, Milner
Morley, Ralph
Tinker, John Joseph


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Toole, Joseph


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Townend, A. E.


Groves, Thomas E.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Grundy, Thomas W.
Mort, D. L.
Turner, B.




Vaughan, D. J.
Welsh, James (Paisley)
Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Viant, S. P.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Walkden, A. G.
West, F. R.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Walker, J.
Westwood, Joseph
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Wallace, H. W.
White, H. G.
Wise, E. F.


Wallhead, Richard C.
Whitetey, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Watkins, F. C.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.



Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Wellock, Wilfred
Williams, T. (York, Don valley)
Paling.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Albery, Irving James
Ganzoni, Sir John
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Atholl, Duchess of
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Ramsbotham, H.


Atkinson, C.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Remer, John R.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Berry, Sir George
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Salmon, Major I.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Hanbury, C.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Boyce, H. L.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bracken, B.
Hartington, Marquess of
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Brass, Captain Sir William
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes
Savery, S. S.


Briscoe, Richard George
Haslam, Henry C.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Skelton, A. N.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Smithers, Waldron


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hurd, Percy A.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Iveagh, Countess of
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Colville, Major D. J.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Train, J.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Cranborne, Viscount
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Turton, Robert Hugh


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Long, Major Eric
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Meller, R. J.
Wells, Sydney R.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Williams, Charles (Devon. Torquay)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Mond, Hon. Henry
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Dawson, Sir Philip
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Eden, Captain Anthony
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Withers, Sir John James


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Muirhead, A. J.
Womersley, W. J.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Worthington-Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)



Fielden, E. B.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn, W. G. (p'trsf'ld)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Captain Margesson and Sir George




Penny.

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 282; Noes, 152.

Division No. 352.]
AYES.
[7.16 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Blindell, James


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Barnes, Alfred John
Bowen, J. W.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Batey, Joseph
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peokham)
Brockway, A. Fenner


Alpass, J. H.
Bellamy, Albert
Bromfield, William


Ammon, Charles George
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Brooke, W.


Arnott, John
Benson, G.
Brothers, M.


Aske, Sir Robert
Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)


Ayles, Walter
Birkett, W. Norman
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Ritson, J.


Burgess, F. G.
Kennedy, Thomas
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Romeril, H. G.


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Kinley, J.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Cameron, A. G.
Kirkwood, D.
Rowson, Guy


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Charleton, H. C.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Chater, Daniel
Lathan, G.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Church, Major A. G.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Clarke, J. S.
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Sanders, W. S.


Cluse, W. S.
Lawrence, Susan
Sandham, E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lawson, John James
Sawyer, G. F.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Scrymgeour, E.


Compton, Joseph
Leach, W.
Scurr, John


Cove, William G.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Sexton, James


Daggar, George
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Dallas, George
Lees, J.
Shield, George William


Dalton, Hugh
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Lindley, Fred W.
Shillaker, J. F.


Day, Harry
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Longbottom, A. W.
Simmons, C. J.


Dickson, T.
Longden, F.
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Simson, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Dukes, C.
Lowth, Thomas
Sinkinson, George


Ede, James Chuter
Lunn, William
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Edmunds, J. E.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Seaham)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Egan, W. H.
McElwee, A.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Elmley, Viscount
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Snell, Harry


Freeman, Peter
McShane, John James
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
March, S.
Sorensen, R.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Marcus, M.
Stamford, Thomas W.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Markham, S. F.
Stephen, Campbell


Gibbins, Joseph
Marley, J.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)
Marshall, Fred
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Gill, T. H.
Mathers, George
Strauss, G. R.


Gillett, George M.
Matters, L. W.
Sullivan, J.


Glassey, A. E.
Messer, Fred
Sutton, J. E.


Gossling, A. G.
Middleton, G.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Gould, F.
Millar, J. D.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mills, J. E.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Milner, Major J.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Granville, E.
Montague, Frederick
Thurtle, Ernest


Gray, Milner
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Tillett, Ben


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morley, Ralph
Tinker, John Joseph


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Toole, Joseph


Groves, Thomas E.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Townend, A. E.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Mort, D. L.
Turner, B.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Moses, J. J. H.
Vaughan, D. J.


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Viant, S. P.


Harbord, A.
Mosiey, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Walkden, A. G.


Hardie, George D.
Muff, G.
Walker, J.


Harris, Percy A.
Muggeridge, H. T.
Wallace, H. W.


Haycock, A. W.
Murnin, Hugh
Wallhead, Richard C.


Hayday, Arthur
Nathan, Major H. L.
Watkins, F. C.


Hayes, John Henry
Naylor, T. E.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Oldfield, J. R.
Wellock, Wilfred


Herriotts, J.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
West, F. R.


Hollins, A.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Westwood, Joseph


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Palin, John Henry
White, H. G.


Horrabin, J. F.
Palmer, E. T.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Perry, S. F.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams David (Swansea, East)


Isaacs, George
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Potts, John S.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Johnston, Thomas
Price, M. P.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Pybus, Percy John
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Quibell, D. J. K.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Wise, E. F.


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Rathbone, Eleanor
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Raynes, W. R.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Paling.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fison, F. G. Clavering
O'Connor, T. J.


Albery, Irving James
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Peake, Captain Osbert


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Atholl, Duchess of
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Atkinson, C.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Ramsbotham, H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Remer, John R.


Berry, Sir George
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Bird, Ernest Roy
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Salmon, Major I.


Boyce, H. L.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bracken, B.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Briscoe, Richard George
Hartington, Marquess of
Savery, S. S.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Buckingham, Sir H.
Haslam, Henry C.
Skelton, A. N.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Smithers, Waldron


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hurd, Percy A.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Cazalet, Caplain Victor A.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Iveagh, Countess of
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Colfox, Major William Philip
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Colman, N. C. D.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Colville, Major D. J.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Train, J.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Cowan, D. M.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Cranborne, Viscount
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Long, Major Eric
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Dalkeith, Earl of
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Wells, Sydney R.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Meller, R. J.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Mond, Hon. Henry
Winteron, Rt. Hon. Earl


Dawson, Sir Philip
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Withers, Sir John James


Eden, Captain Anthony
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Womersley, W. J.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Muirhead, A. J.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)



Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fermoy, Lord
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Captain Margesson and Sir George


Fielden, E. B.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Penny.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment is the one about which the Chairman and myself are rather doubtful, but I will call upon the right hon. Member to move it.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, in page 16, line 9, at the end, to add the words:
Provided that this section shall not apply to the income of any consul or official agent in the service of any foreign state which has made default in meeting its financial obligations.
I am moving this Amendment on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for St. George's (Sir L. Worthington-Evans), and it has been put down in order to provide that the benefits of this Clause shall not apply to any consul or official agent in the service of any
foreign State which has made default in meeting its financial obligations. I have listened to every word of this debate, and I have been trying to study this Clause to the best of my ability. I cannot see that, as far as British subjects are concerned, many people will derive any benefit from the Clause. I can see that considerable benefit will accrue to the subjects of at least one foreign country in particular—Soviet Russia. I am sorry again to have to drag in Russia. I will mention, very shortly, the reason why Russia has to be mentioned in this connection. I believe that very few British subjects are going to be affected at all by this Clause, but Russia is on an entirely different footing. It has been mentioned over and over again in this debate that Russia
has a trade monopoly. She had not only a trade monopoly, but she has practically a monopoly in every activity indulged in by the people. She can throw the cloak of this monopoly over any kind of national activity she wishes to cover up. That means, if she chooses to do so, that a very large number of people from Russia may benefit from this Clause. Do we really want to give the Soviet Government at the present moment the benefit of this very preferential treatment? If we do want to give Soviet Russia the benefit of this preferential treatment I think that we should ask ourselves, what are we going to get in return?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: On the last Amendment we really discussed the substance of the Clause itself. It was not strictly in order, but I thought that by allowing that discussion on the question of Russia, it would not be further discussed. In this particular Amendment the sole issue before the Committee is whether a nation shall benefit under this Clause which has not fulfilled its financial obligations, and I must rigidly keep within that point. We cannot discuss the whole field of Russia's alleged shortcomings.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I will do my utmost to abide by your Ruling, but I believe it is true that the only defaulting nation at the present moment, so far as we are concerned, is the Soviet Union.

HON. MEMBERS: No!

Mr. MILLS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will kindly specify the actual data on which he bases the assertion that Russia is a defaulting nation?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Perhaps it is not entirely accurate to say that Russia is the only defaulting country, but the magnitude of their default bears no comparison with the default of other countries. I will reply to the question of my hon. Friend, keeping within your Ruling. Surely, before we give this concession we ought to see that these debts are, not perhaps altogether paid off, but that at any rate Russia, or the Soviet Union, is willing to pay the debts? It is perfectly true that negotiations are
going on at the present time between our Foreign Secretary and the Soviet in regard to these debts, but for the moment we have not the slightest idea what the issue will be, and we do not in the least know whether the debts will be paid off. In the past it has very often been taken for granted, and I have often heard hon. Members opposite mention this fact, that the debts are owing to very rich people. That is an entire fallacy. These Soviet debts in large part are owing to very poor people. If you look at the debts, you will find that the majority of them are very small holders indeed. I have in my hand a pamphlet issued by the British holders of Russian bonds. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman knows this pamphlet. I do not think he will say that this is in the least controversial. He will find that on page 25 it gives a summary of the holders of these Russian bonds, and it may surprise hon. Members opposite to hear that the bonds up to £100 and not over form 42.3 per cent. of the whole; from £101 to £500 no less than 28.4 per cent.; from £500 to £1,000, 10 per cent.; from £1,000 to £5,000, 11.6 per cent.; and above £5,00, only 7.7 per cent.
Many of these debts are in railway bonds and municipal bonds. The Soviet, after its revolution, took over the railways as a going concern. They were flourishing, and all their reports have shown that the railways are bringing in a great deal of money and that a great deal of progress has been achieved. Why should debts like these be repudiated? Why should this kind of debt which is owed in respect of a concern which was taken over as flourishing and is now paying a large income to the State be repudiated? The same applies to the municipal bonds. If you look at the borrowing municipalities, you find that, according to all reports, official reports, of the Soviet Government, they exceeded the level of their pre-War prosperity. If you take the Russian Imperial bonds, you will find that they were not used for war purposes. They were not used to upset the Czarist regime; they were used for roads, waterways, and other economic purposes, and also for famine relief and similar national necessities. Why should these debts be repudiated? I can understand some hon. Members opposite saying that we should
no longer hold the Russian Soviet Government responsible in the case of money loaned for war purposes, but to my mind there is no moral reason why we should not hold them responsible for these debts. The national debt of Russia today is smaller per capita of the population than that of any other of the countries allied in the War.
I have dealt with the question of Russia, because, looking at this Clause, I do not see that we are going to get any benefit out of it at all, and I do see that a very large and indefinite number of Russian subjects may get considerable benefit. I say once more that I feel that this preferential treatment ought not to be offered to a country in the position of Russia with her debts completely unpaid, debts to this country which obviously are in respect of loans of which she made good use, and which are a national asset to her.

Mr. MILLS: I wish, very briefly, to deal with the alleged answers that have been given by the right hon. Member opposite. Briefly the contention on this side is that the historical basis of the argument goes back to 1924. I think it is agreed that the agreement reached in 1924 was something of more material benefit to those who were the actual creditors of Russia than anything yet achieved in Genoa, The Hague, or anywhere else. There was a definite promise, not only to recognise, but to pay, and no further steps were to be taken in any direction until the first payment was made. Conversations are going on now for an agreement based upon the recognition of these debts, all of which are of the pre-War period of Russia. I fail to see where they can possibly be brought in to apply in any way whatever to this year's Finance Bill. If you can point to any commercial transaction since the change of Government, since 1918 or later, which has led to any default in any commercial transaction, then I am quite prepared to admit that that is an entirely new case. I have made the challenge from this side of the House before. I have said, and I repeat it, that the owner of the "Morning Post" himself, the Duke of Northumberland, has benefited to the extent of thousands of pounds from coal going out from the port of Blyth. Every ton of coal that went out has been paid for. Even during the period of Lord
Curzon, when the greatest possible pressure was being put on that coal area to restrict the export of coal to Russia, it was continued because the commercial agreement was satisfactorily honoured.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have allowed hon. Members to refer to Russia, but it is obvious that on an Amendment like this we cannot go into the history of Russia. The principle under discussion is very clearly stated in the words of the Amendment, and, while it is quite legitimate to argue on the point at issue, we cannot discuss the whole field of Russian history.

Mr. CHURCHILL: On a point of Order. May I, with great respect, refresh your memory as to the course which events in this debate have taken? In the first place, my right hon. Friend was engaged in unfolding the case for the Amendment, and made some reference to Russia. You cautioned him that in the main your Ruling was that Russia could not be a substantial matter of debate. Then the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) interjected a question which forced my right hon. Friend to reply and to enter much more closely into the matter than he had otherwise intended. Then you, observing the provocation of the hon. Member for Dartford, allowed the right hon. Gentleman to open up the question. Then the hon. Member for Dartford got up and made a speech full of all sorts of definite statements which I should have thought were wholly unfounded and incorrect, statements which we are very familiar with as part of the stock-in-trade of the party opposite. We cannot allow all these untruthful statements to pass, statements grossly erroneous and misleading if they were accepted, because we should lay ourselves open to the charge of failing in our duty. It is impossible after you have allowed that latitude to the hon. Gentleman, that an adequate reply should not be permitted, at any rate up to the point when you intervened. I was myself intending to deal, and am now relying upon you letting me deal, with some of the propositions which the hon. Gentleman has advanced. Now that you have arrested his flow upon this subject, I will of course hold myself strictly limited to replying to the points that he has advanced. I submit, as a point of Order, that when a Chairman has per-
mitted a discussion to be made upon matters of high public policy, it is the right of Members who are deeply offended by those assertions, to have an opportunity of expressing their views.

Mr. LEIF JONES: On a point of Order. There are other countries than Russia, and, if the case of Russia is to be entered into fully on this Amendment, shall we not equally be able to discuss the question of any other country which has at any time made default in its financial obligations? I venture to suggest that Germany has made default in meeting its financial obligations. Austria has made default, and so has France, at the time of the French Revolution. If this line of argument is to be followed, I see no reason why we should not range over most of the countries of the world discussing their financial position at any time. There is no limit as to time or space in this Amendment. I doubt if any Government has not in the last 200 years defaulted in its financial obligations. To limit it to Russia is not only unfriendly to a country with which we are on diplomatic and friendly terms at the present time, but it is altogether an unjust conception of how we are to deal with this matter in a financial Bill. I appeal to you to have in mind, not only Russia, but all those other countries which in comparatively recent years have made default in meeting their financial obligations.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must confess that I had grave doubts as to whether I ought to call this Amendment, and I warned hon. Members that they must keep to the point at issue. Unfortunately, when an interjection is made the Chairman does not know what the speaker is going to say until he has said it. The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) expressed a number of things very quickly, and I allowed him to do so in reply to the right hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson), but when he transgressed upon grounds not necessary for his reply, I immediately pulled him up. I am convinced now that I allowed my generosity to override my judgment, and I must now confine the debate within the very narrow limits laid down earlier. I cannot allow a general discussion.

Mr. CHURCHILL: On that point of Order. If a specific statement of facts is allowed to be made by the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills), is it not open for us on this side of the Committee to reply to them?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) accepts my Ruling, and the reply is kept precisely to the statement made, I will allow it. But I say at once, quite firmly, that I am not prepared to allow a general discussion.

Mr. LEIF JONES: Is it really the case that on this Amendment we can go into the question as to whether any foreign State has at any time defaulted in its financial obligations? The Amendment says:
any foreign state which has made default in meeting its financial obligations.
That does not involve, I submit, any particular case where a country has defaulted. That is not within the scope of the Amendment.

Mr. MILLS: The terms of the Amendment are hopelessly out of order because they are incoherent. There ought to be some time limit.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not responsible for accepting Amendments. That is the responsibility of the Chair.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I certainly feel strongly disposed to deal seriatim with the various statements of the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills), but, in all the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the appeal which has been made to us by the representative of the Liberal party not to allow any remarks to pass about any country which might have the slightest irritating effect, I will deal with the proposition entirely in general terms. On the face of it, is it not the most reasonable proposition that could be presented? Is there not a case for excluding from these special favours a State which has defaulted in the payment of its debts? If there were such a State—I will not mention names—which, having borrowed vast sums of money, hundreds of millions of pounds, from a friendly ally, afterwards repudiated flatly and con-
tumaciously all responsibility for repaying a single penny of that sum, is that a State to which you would grant these special favours? If there were a State which not only repudiated the debts contracted by the Government of the country, but proceeded to steal the private property of individuals who had invested their money on public faith and international understanding, would not that be the State which you would exclude from these special favours? If there were a State which was founded upon a doctrine and creed so vile and inhuman that it takes as its fundamental point the breaking of faith with all persons not associated with its doctrine, if there were such a State, is not that the State which we should exclude from our courteous indulgence and usages in this country? That is all that the Amendment says. It is not necessary to go back over a period of 200 years; that would be a long time to go back in a search of the State which I have hypothetically mentioned. You might not have to go back over the whole of that time—I do not know. The right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones) cried out against any remarks which might possibly wound the susceptibilities of any foreign country; now he complains that we do not extend our condemnation to all foreign countries.

Mr. LEIF JONES: You do. The Amendment in set terms reflects upon any foreign State which has made default at any time in meeting its financial obligations. I say that Germany has made default, Austria has made default, and France has made default. I say that most European countries within the last 200 years have made default in meeting their financial obligations.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The right hon. Member, in a most offensive way, has mentioned the names of some countries, and the responsibility for any ill-will which may follow must fall upon his shoulders. We have not been the cause of bringing this matter before Parliament. The Government have gone out of their way to insert in this Finance Bill a provision by which, unless this Amendment is accepted, they will bestow special indulgences upon Powers, if such Powers there be, who have defaulted and repudiated their public obligations. I agree that there are strict limits upon
the amount of pressure which one country can put upon another in the matter of repayment of debt. You cannot put a great Power in the county court, you cannot obtain a summons against a State or distrain upon their property. The repayment of debt by countries depends very largely upon the measure of their desire to maintain proper credit, and I agree that it would perhaps be unwise for us to press upon the Government the interpretation of this Amendment which would have the effect of denying these privileges to all those countries who may at one time or another, through the depreciation of their currency or some other cause, have defaulted in their payments. But when a case is presented of deliberate, wilful and contumacious repudiation, then I am of opinion that these indulgences should not apply, and it is for the Government to say whether or not contumacious default has taken place. There are defaulting States in the American Union. There are loans given to friendly and allied nations on the Continent, but the gravamen of the charge we are making against any country which is sought to be affected by this Amendment is that it is a deliberate and flagrant repudiation of contractual obligations.
We cannot for a moment exclude from our minds the fact that these defaults may recur in the future. The weapons which one great Power has against another in the matter of the enforcement of debt are very limited. Here is one of your weapons; a small means of putting pressure on a defaulting State; a small minor, non-violent, non-military, method of indicating that certain practices places a country on a lower plane in the civilisation of the world. It is not a question of violent action. You have no power to take violent action, and it would be folly for any country to go to war to collect its debts. More money would be squandered in the first month of the war than the amount of the debt. But let us use the means we have; they are few enough and small enough. In this Amendment we have one method by which we can express our abhorrence and detestation of those practices which places a country guilty of them on a definitely lower level than others. Again I say that we have not raised this matter. We were content to let it lie in the calm and obscure atmosphere to which the custom of generations had relegated it. But the
Government, going out of their way in looking for trouble, trying to extend the wider controversy between the parties, have insisted upon our giving these new facilities in statutory form. If these advantages are to be extended, if these courtesies and harmonious usages are to be extended, on a reciprocal basis, at least let it be said that there are some exceptions which we have the wisdom to proclaim and the resolution to enforce.

8.0 p.m.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): The right hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) moved the Amendment in his accustomed courteous manner, and the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) followed in his accustomed exuberant manner. Both right hon. Gentlemen addressed themselves to the heinousness of default in meeting financial obligations. That point, I submit, has very little to do with the Amendment. It might be used as an argument for refusing to accord recognition to a country which has defaulted, but in all the cases to which the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones) referred we have accorded recognition for many years past. The question whether we should accord recognition to the country which has figured largely in this debate is not being decided now. It was decided by the appeal which was made to the country a little more than a year ago, and the position was settled once and for all by the verdict of the country at that election. What we are called upon to decide now is something very different. We are called upon to decide whether, when we have recognised a country—whether it be a country that hon. Members have in mind or any of the other countries mentioned—and have admitted an embassy and consulate, we are going to single out a few individuals who are the personal representatives of that country, in order to work our spite on hem. That is so. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman opposite to shake hs head, but the main issue is the recognition of that country. That issue has been decided. To attempt to exercise the animosity, whether justified or not, which you have against a nation, on the two or three individuals who represent it in consulates of this country, is unworthy of a great
nation, and, I should have thought, unworthy of any party in the House.
In these circumstances it is obviously quite impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment. This Clause is designed to deal with foreign representatives in the only way which is really practicable and sensible. It would be quite impossible to attempt to make the kind of condition which is envisaged in the Amendment—a condition which in many cases it would be impossible or difficult to prove, and which would be a matter of dispute leading to all sorts of trouble, and if proved would be most unfair.

Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: I would not have intervened but for the fact that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has not attempted to deal with the main principle which underlies the Amendment. The question is whether the taxpayers of this country are to be called upon to find large sums in taxation when at the same time a foreign country to whose subjects the Government propose to extend a special favour by this Clause, is in default. The class of defaults which I have in mind is covered by the words of the Amendment:
Provided that this section shall not apply to the income of any consul or official agent in the service of any foreign state which has made default in meeting its financial obligations.

Mr. MILLS: Since when?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Let me give the most recent cases of countries which have made default and are in default. When I mention the class of cases I am certain that the Financial Secretary and hon. Members generally will agree with my contention. Take the class of States, of which there are quite a number, which are in default with their subscriptions to the League of Nations. Take the class of States which are in default with their subscriptions to the international Labour Office. Why should we be asked to put ourselves in the position that British subjects are to suffer in taxation in order that favours may be extended to the subjects of those States? That is the question which underlies the Amendment. If this matter had been left to slumber on peacefully under the shade of the Treasury Bench, as it has done for 100 years, the question would not have arisen, but since the Government have dragged it into the light of day and are
now proposing to give the subjects of these various States this special privilege, it is necessary that the Committee should scrutinise carefully the words that are put into the Clause. I do not think there is any hon. Member who will not agree that when we are dealing with a State which at the moment is flagrantly in default with its most reasonable obligations to an international body, the Government ought not to pick out the subjects of that State for special monetary favour.

Captain EDEN: I hope the Committee will not lose sight of the very important principle embodied in the Amendment because of a rather natural desire to apply it to any particular country, for there is a principle of considerable substance in the Amendment. I do not suppose that my right hon. Friend whose name appears first to the Amendment is particularly tied to this form of words, but the purpose which we have in mind is sufficiently important and serious to deserve the attention of hon. Gentlemen opposite. What the Government are doing in this Clause is to grant entirely new privileges, which have never been granted before in a Finance Bill passed by this House. It is not for me to discuss the Government's motives. But the fact that I have mentioned has entirely changed the position with which the Committee is confronted. We are faced with this Clause based upon a Treasury Minute about which no one knew anything until a short time ago. The existence of the Clause brings about an entirely new state of affairs, and in the light of that fact the Amendment should be considered. Surely hon. Gentlemen opposite can see that without being angry about raising the bogey of Russia. We surely have a right in Committee to ensure that these privileges shall be given only to countries to which we consider it worthy to extend them because they have fulfilled their obligations towards British citizens? It seems to me that that is an extraordinary simple criterion to take, and an eminently reasonable one. It is the criterion that would be taken in any business. If you grant a man certain favoured conditions in business, it is because you have been doing business with him at other times and have always been treated fairly and squarely. All we ask is that a simple limitation shall be put in to make sure that these exceptional and new privileges
shall be given only in cases where they are fully justified. It is not true to say that the Amendment is aimed at any individual State. Nothing of the kind.

Mr. LEIF JONES: The speech of the Mover of the Amendment showed that it was aimed at a particular State.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I was simply using that as an example.

Captain EDEN: My right hon. Friend was giving an illustration which might be stretched broadly to meet other cases in point. But there is a matter of principle in the Amendment, and we are not concerned with any particular State to the exclusion of others; we are concerned only with individuals in their official capacity. What agreements are there in favour of our own representatives in countries which have recently defaulted? Have we got anything in return for this concession? The Government might give us at least that information.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: The only reason why I do not follow the points raised by the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills), is that it would be out of order to do so. Had it been in order I should have liked to have shown him from practical experience how bitter are the views of those who have suffered by the default of Russia. The point I want to raise specially is to ask the Financial Secretary whether, in considering the Amendment, he has considered the fact that Russia occupies and will occupy a totally different position under this Clause from any other State. The Clause excludes from its operation
an official agent in the United Kingdom for any foreign state, not being an employment exercised by a British subject or exercised in connection with any trade, business or other undertaking.
I think I am correct in saying that there is no country in the world whose official diplomatic agents are in any way concerned directly with trade or industry, except Russia. Has the Financial Secretary considered the possibility and the practicability of differentiating between the purely diplomatic services of the agents of Russia and the trade services of the agents of Russia? Without some such proviso as that in the Amendment will he not find himself in great difficulty, or rather will not the Income Tax Commis-
sioners find great difficulty in deciding whether the operations of certain official agents or consuls are not in fact trade operations and should be excluded, or whether they are purely diplomatic salaries and can properly come under the Clause? The point is one of substance. I do not raise it in order to attack the Russian Government, but as a practical difficulty.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I would like to reinforce what has been said. The reason for the Amendment has been explained fully and I do not want to labour it. Nearly every speech from this side of the Committee has been made the subject of a running obligato of criticisms and interruptions from the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones). The right hon. Gentleman did not appear to object so much to the principle of the Amendment as to the fact that he said it singled out Russia. On the other hand he made a point of the fact that it might apply to countries which had been in default in their obligations 10, 20, 100 or 200 years ago. The terms of the Amendment are by no means sacrosanct; there are no particular virtues in any one of its words. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to be a little more helpful and constructive and to suggest what are the limits which he would like to impose on the Amendment.

Mr. LEIF JONES: Since the right hon. Gentleman appeals to me, I would say to him that, instead of having a general statement such as that which appears on the Order Paper, he ought to make the Amendment read in this way:
Provided that this section shall not apply to the income of any consul or official agent in the service of Russia.
Such an Amendment would at least have the advantage of saying what the Members of the Opposition have been saying in their speeches and of expressing what they mean and the Committee would not be in the unreal atmosphere in which we have been discussing this question.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Then the course of the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly simple. He ought to hand in
a further Amendment at the Table to leave out all the concluding words of the Amendment on the Paper—"any foreign state" and so on—and to insert the word "Russia."

Mr. JONES: As the right hon. Gentleman is perpetually appealing to me, may I say that it does not matter to me whether I vote against this Amendment in the form in which I say it ought to appear, or in the form in which it is being moved. To me it is equally objectionable either way.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The right hon. Gentleman says that in no case would he vote for the Amendment either as we have it down or as he in himself would have it. That is one of the most paradoxical statements I have ever heard outside of "Alice in Wonderland."

Mr. JONES: It is quite intelligent.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: There are lots of things in "Alice in Wonderland" which are quite intelligent, but at the same time not such as are generally debated on the Floor of the House of Commons. The real point here is that this is a comparatively minor concession but a concession which is valued and, that being so, it is a concession which ought to be deserved by those to whom it is granted. Are there not cases—I am not referring to Russia particularly—in which it might properly be said that a concession of this kind has not been deserved. There are some obligations which ought to be observed by States. These may be obligations to us in the way of debts or they may be international obligations of various kinds. I have here, for instance, a table of the amounts owing by various countries in subscriptions either to the League of Nations or to the International Labour Office. It is perfectly clear that there is a distinction to be drawn and that if a country defaults either in its obligations to us, or in its international obligations otherwise, it has no special claim on us that we should make a concession of this kind at the expense of the taxpayers here.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 123: Noes, 272.

Division No. 353.]
AYES.
[8.21 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Peake, Captain Osbert


Albery, Irving James
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Penny, Sir George


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Atholl, Duchess of
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Ramsbotham, H.


Atkinson, C.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Remer, John R.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hail, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Berry, Sir George
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Salmon, Major I.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Haslam, Henry C.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxl'd, Henley)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Savery, S. S.


Bracken, B.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hurd, Percy A.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'rl & Kinc'dine, C.)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke Naw'gton)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Smithers, Waldron


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Colman, N. C. D.
Long, Major Eric
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Cranborne, Viscount
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Meller, R. J.
Train, J.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Mond, Hon. Henry
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Wells, Sydney R.


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Eden, Captain Anthony
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Muirhead, A. J.
Withers, Sir John James


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Womersley, W. J.


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Nicholson, col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert



Ganzoni, Sir John
O'Connor, T. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Captain Wallace and Sir Victor




Warrender.




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Chater, Daniel
Gray, Milner


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Church, Major A. G.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Clarke, J. S.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Cluse, W. S.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Groves, Thomas E.


Alpass, J. H.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Grundy, Thomas W.


Ammon, Charles George
Compton, Joseph
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Arnott, John
Cove, William G.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Aske, Sir Robert
Cowan, D. M.
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Daggar, George
Harbord, A.


Ayles, Walter
Dallas, George
Hardie, George D.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Dalton, Hugh
Harris, Percy A.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Batey, Joseph
Dickson, T.
Haycock, A. W.


Bellamy, Albert
Dudqeon, Major C. R.
Hayday, Arthur


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Dukes, C.
Hayes, John Henry


Benson, G.
Ede, James Chuter
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Edmunds, J. E.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)


Birkett, W. Norman
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)


Blindell, James
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Egan, W. H.
Herriotts, J.


Bowen, J. W.
Elmley, Viscount
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Freeman, Peter
Hollins, A.


Bromfield, William
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Brooke, W.
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Horrabin, J. F.


Brothers, M.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Gibbins, Joseph
Hunter, Dr. Joseph


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Gill, T. H.
Isaacs, George


Buchanan, G.
Gillett, George M.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Burgess, F. G.
Glassey, A. E.
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Gossling, A. G.
Johnston, Thomas


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Gould, F.
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)


Cameron, A. G.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Charleton, H. C.
Granville, E.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)




Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Mort, D. L.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Moses, J. J. H.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Kelly, W. T.
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Kennedy, Thomas
Muff, G.
Snell, Harry


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Muggeridge, H. T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Kinley, J.
Murnin, Hugh
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Kirkwood, D.
Nathan, Major H. L.
Sorensen, R.


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Naylor, T. E.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Lathan, G.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Stephen, Campbell


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Law, A. (Rosendale)
Oldfield, J. R.
Sullivan, J.


Lawrence, Susan
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Sutton, J. E.


Lawson, John James
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Leach, W.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Palin, John Henry.
Thurtle, Ernest


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Paling, Wilfrid
Tillett, Ben


Lees, J.
Perry, S. F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Toole, Joseph


Lindley, Fred W.
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Townend, A. E.


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Turner, B.


Logan, David Gilbert
Potts, John S.
Vaughan, D. J.


Longbottom, A. W.
Price, M. P.
Viant, S. P.


Longden, F.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Walkden, A. G.


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Walker, J.


Lowth, Thomas
Raynes, W. R.
Wallace, H. W.


Lunn, William
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Watkins, F. C.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Ritson, J.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


McElwee, A.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Wellock, Wilfred


McEntee, V. L.
Romeril, H. G.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


MacLaren, Andrew
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Rowson, Guy
West, F. R.


McShane, John James
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Westwood, Joseph


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
White, H. G.


Mansfield, W.
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


March, S.
Sanders, W. S.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Marcus, M.
Sandham, E.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Markham, S. F.
Sawyer, G. F.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Marley, J.
Scrymgeour, E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Marshall, Fred
Scurr, John
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Mathers, George
Sexton, James
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Matters, L. W.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Messer, Fred
Shield, George William
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Middleton, G.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Millar, J. D.
Shillaker, J. F.
Wise, E. F.


Mills, J. E.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Milner, Major J.
Simmons, C. J.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Montague, Frederick
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)



Morley, Ralph
Sinkinson, George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. A.


Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Barnes.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: This Clause is perhaps one of the most typical Clauses one could wish not to have in a Finance Bill. In the first place, it is typical of the unwisdom of not letting sleeping dogs lie. Here we have had a practice which, by common consent, has lasted for a large number of years and on the whole has not given dissatisfaction. There have been few complaints made with respect to it, and little would have been heard of it if it had not been desired to give it a new legislative form and substance. We are told that nothing is really added to the administrative practice of the last 100 years, that it has
not been substantially altered or enlarged. Under these circumstances we have an instance of what usually occurs when people are not content with an administrative practice which, on the whole, has given satisfaction, and proceed to bring it within the four corners of a Clause in a Bill. It is at once seen that it is very difficult, when you try to narrow it down to actual definition, to give satisfaction or to meet the varying needs and cases in the same way as can be done under an ordinary, strict, but adaptable administration.
It is obvious that when you have an administration of the kind that has gone on, it has been able to give to consuls and consular agents exemption from Income Tax in those cases where it was
wise that it should be given. It has been able, on the other hand, to refuse to do so, as one gathers, in those cases where trade is carried on for profit. The moment you try to bring this within the four corners of an Act of Parliament, you begin to have defects and difficulties and impossibilities of a kind which by now even the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer must recognise as probably productive of hardship and inequality. If I were asked what would be one of the most undesirable effects of a Clause of this kind, I should say that it is that which occurs in Sub-section (2, b), and, moreover, it is one of those results which one might expect from the kind of legislation that would be proposed by the party opposite.
I am not proposing to go into the question of Free Trade, but I am quite sure that, if there is a kind of preference given to the foreigner which the most rigid Free Trader would dislike, it would be the kind of preference given in Sub-section (2, b). It is one thing to say that you will allow foreign goods to come in and compete with the employment of people here, and that you are determined to have that practice continued, but in this Sub-section it is obvious that we are giving preference to the employment of foreigners over here, and we are quite distinctly enabling it to be given more cheaply and to undercut our own countrymen. When you have
the employment of an official agent in the United Kingdom for any foreign state, not being an employment exercised by a British subject or exercised in connection with any trade. … for the purposes of profit,
he is to enjoy this exemption. The moment that you have a British subject in this country, performing precisely the same work, for precisely the same master, he is to be liable to Income Tax at the same time as his foreign competitor for the job is to go scot free. If you take the cost of living in this country, and if a salary is given which would enable a person to live according to a certain standard of comfort, it makes all the difference whether or not Income Tax is to be reckoned in that salary. It makes quite clear that if the same standard of living is to be enjoyed by the two employés, the foregn employé and the British employé, the foreigner will be employed here rather than the
British subject if his salary is to be free of Income Tax and the salary of the British subject is not, because, in order to give them the same standard of living, a higher nominal pay will have to be given to the British subject, so that when Income Tax is taken off he is put on a level with the foreigner.
We are told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if you give this exemption from Income Tax to the British subject, you will again be creating an inequality, for the British subject who is employed by a foreign consular agent will get some form of exemption, whereas the British subject who is employed in any other business will not. That was the whole defence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of this Clause. If you cannot get complete equality all round, and if a preference is to be given, I would sooner that the British subject were given the preference than that a foreign subject should be given a preference over the British subject. If there is to be inequality, I would prefer inequality as between British subjects to inequality in which a foreign resident here gets a definite advantage in the commercial world over the British subject. I think that probably that is the actual effect of this Sub-section, and that it will be appreciated by hon. Members opposite. For the first time we are definitely imposing by Statute an obligation on people which will tend to drive them, despite the present state of unemployment, to give employment to a foreigner in this country rather than to a British subject.
The next question is concerned with the words "for the purposes of profit." There is no question that what are exempted by Sub-section (3) of this Clause are what would normally be trading operations if they had been carried out by a normal company or corporation existing for the purpose. On the other hand, the Clause is too wide. It really gives an exemption to a corporation, whether a country or a corporation set up by a country, that does not profess to trade for profit, and I can only imagine that it may be liked by hon. Members opposite, because such a corporation can compete with traders in this country who have to make some profit on which to live, for it gives them exemption which puts them at an advan-
tage as compared with the British competitor, or with the colonial competitor and importer here. The Chancellor, in his reply, said that when all was said and done, a body like a co-operative society was in fact trading for profit. It is quite clear that it is not. Its dividends, except to outsiders, consist of a rebate upon purchase price. It is not trading for profit. [Interruption.]

Mr. LEES: The right hon. Gentleman did not always say that.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am accepting it, and if the hon. Member approves of it, I take it that he cannot give his support to this Sub-section. I am putting forward the argument that hon. Members have so often used. [Interruption.] If the dividends of a co-operative society are given to non-members, they are profit. Their exemption from income Tax is due to the fact that when they are given to members, they are not profit, but rebate. Under these circumstances, a co-operative society is quite clearly not an undertaking for the purposes of profit; and here the exemption is given to an
agency, not being a department or agency which carries on any trade, business or other undertaking for the purposes of profit.
Therefore, you give exemption in this country to representatives of companies which I mentioned earlier in the debate, and which quite clearly are competing with traders in this country, who, because the Sub-section is drawn so widely, are at an unfair disadvantage. I am not going into details about the Australian or American Shipping Boards, but, as time goes on, it is clear that we shall get more instances of this kind of company trading under this exemption. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a comment on the length of time that this Clause has taken. The time that it has taken, however, is almost the Chancellor's own fault. There are these vital flaws in the substance of the Clause, and the reason why it has taken so long is the way in which the Chancellor has treated the Committee in regard to it. It is his method even more than the substance of the Clause that has made Members on this side resentful of the way in which the Committee has been treated. As regards the authorities for it, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer said no Government representative could be expected to come down armed with all the documents and all the Blue Books on any particular point that might be raised, but what we can expect with reason is that when there are one or two fundamental documents on which the whole Clause is based he should be able to deal with questions concerning them. That is what he has refused to do this afternoon. We have been told that this Clause is based upon a Treasury Minute. We have asked for that Treasury Minute. The Chancellor has been asked whether it is, in fact, in existence, and whether it can be produced or will be produced. [HON. MEMBERS: "Say it again!"] Those of us who are cognisant of the ordinary conventions under which alone business can be properly carried on in this House will be prepared to press our point home, whatever may be said by hon. Members opposite. We are asked to pass a Clause on the mere ipse dixit of a Member of the Government. The Chancellor says that it is based on a Treasury Minute, is based on a recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee, and thinks it is quite sufficient to state that without quoting the Minute or the recommendation or without giving references by which we could endeavour to trace them. Therefore, we shall oppose this Clause to the utmost of our ability.

Major COLFOX: I consider that this Clause is very undesirable——[HON. MEMBERS: "Really!"]—and I consider that I have a perfect right to express my opinion upon it. In the first place, I regard it as undesirable because it puts into statutory and legislative form and in an inflexible way a custom which, I understand, bas been followed for a good many years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Is that so!"] The Chancellor told us that it is so, but he will not produce evidence to prove it. I presume it is so, but I have only his ipse dixit to go on. If this procedure were to continue to rest upon custom and precedent it would be more easy to administer fairly than it will be when it is put into a statutory form with an appeal to the courts of law. It is another instance of the difference between a written constitution and a constitution which has grown up by precedent and custom. I object to the Clause because it gives immunity from taxation to all
consular officers and agents, no matter what the custom or the law of the country which they represent. I should not so much object to this Clause if it represented a reciprocal arrangement. [Interruption.] I may say that these ignorant interruptions from the Government benches do not really disturb me, and I shall have my say, provided, of course, that I get the protection of the Chair.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member can leave it to me to intervene. Up to the moment I do not know that anything has occurred which should justify him in making that special appeal to me, because it carries a reflection.

Major COLFOX: Certainly, Mr. Young. I quite see your point. I merely wish to point out that these vulgar interruptions only prolong the proceedings, which have already been unduly lengthened by the action of the Chancellor. As I say, I object to this Clause because once it is the law this custom will become inflexible and hard, and therefore much more difficult to administer.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: On a point of Order. May I call attention to the fact that there are constant interruptions from the Front Bench below the Gangway opposite. Every time the hon. and gallant Member comes to the end of a sentence one of the hon. Members below the Gangway makes an interjection.

The CHAIRMAN: I did not notice interruptions or interjections from hon. Members below the Gangway, but I notice that when there are interjections from one side they are replied to by the other side, which makes it more difficult for the Chair. In any case, I would remind the hon. and gallant Member for West Dorset (Major Colfox) of the rule against repetition of arguments.

Mr. WALLHEAD: On a point of Order. May I draw attention to the continual repetition of arguments not only in the same speech——

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member need not rise to a point of Order when I have already referred to that matter.

Mr. WALLHEAD: What I wish to refer to is the repetition of each other's arguments by hon. Members opposite.

Major COLFOX: When one is continually interrupted one's train of
thought is broken and it is obviously difficult to keep a connected argument going by careful stages to one's point. [Laughter.] This kind of thing makes it extremely difficult to avoid some slight repetition occasionally. I was saying that I should not object so much to this Clause if it were a reciprocal Clause, and that was leading me up to ask——[Laughter].

The CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members ought not to be induced to interrupt in the way they are doing.

Major COLFOX: I know that
the loud laugh proclaims the vacant mind,
but it is rather disturbing to the thread of one's arguments. What I was leading up to was to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what countries, if any, there are which grant us reciprocal terms in this matter, that is to say, who grant immunity from taxation to our consular and diplomatic representatives. I know that he told us earlier that some countries did, but I should like him to amplify that statement and to tell us the names of those countries. If he is unable to get that information, as he seems to be unable to get any information, perhaps he could at least tell us the number of countries which give us reciprocity and the number which do not. Then we should be in a better position to weigh up the justice of this Clause.
There is another and to my mind very important objection to the Clause. It is really another instance of protective legislation of which we have had many during the period in which the present Government have been in office, protecting some interest or other. This is another example of the Government forcing through this House Measures, not to protest English people or English business, but to protect the foreigner and the foreign competitors of English people and English business. There can be no doubt that that form of protection must be harmful to this country. I know that you, Mr. Young, will rule me out of order if I discuss the general principles of Protection, but there can be no doubt whatever that the protection, of foreigners as against British competitors must be extremely harmful. That is another reason why, in my judgment, this Clause should not be passed into law.

Mr. SMITHERS: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has reminded us that the method adopted in this Clause of relieving of Income Tax foreign representatives in consular positions and those in the service of consuls has been in force for 100 years. It is a curious thing that the right hon. Gentleman should have brought that argument to his aid in the very year in which we have resumed diplomatic relations with the Soviet Government. It is still more curious that this proposal should be put forward at a time when a foreign Government is doing its very best to overthrow the Empire.

The CHAIRMAN: Any references of that kind on this Clause must fee in general terms applying to all nations, and not to any particular country.

Mr. SMITH ERS: Every country which is doing its best to overthrow this Empire

by its propaganda will look upon this concession as another step gained in their activities in the direction of trying to overthrow the British Empire and civilisation as a whole. This is another sign of the weakness of the present Government. I believe that there are certain Members of the Government who do not desire that this Empire should be overthrown, but I am quite convinced that the concession which is put forward in this Clause will encourage political propagandists in this country to go on with their propaganda, and consequently the Government, by this proposal, are aiding and abetting the enemies of the King and the Empire.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 273; Noes, 128.

Division No. 354.]
AYES.
[9.1 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Dukes, C.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Ede, James Chuter
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Edge, Sir William
Isaacs, George


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Edmunds, J. E.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Alpass, J. H.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Ammon, Charles George
Egan, W. H.
Johnston, Thomas


Arnott, John
Elmley, Viscount
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)


Aske, Sir Robert
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Freeman, Peter
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)


Ayles, Walter
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Batey, Joseph
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Bellamy, Albert
Gibbins, Joseph
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)
Kelly, W. T.


Benson, G.
Gill, T. H.
Kennedy, Thomas


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Gillett, George M.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Glassey, A. E.
Kinley, J.


Birkett, W. Norman
Gossling, A. G.
Kirkwood, D.


Blindell, James
Gould, F.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lathan, G.


Bowen, J. W.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Granville, E.
Law, A. (Rosendale)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Gray, Milner
Lawrence, Susan


Bromfield, William
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lawson, John James


Brooke, W.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Brothers, M.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Leach, W.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Groves, Thomas E.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Buchanan, G.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Lees, J.


Burgess, F. G.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Lindley, Fred W.


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Harbord, A.
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Cameron, A. G.
Hardie, George D.
Logan, David Gilbert


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Harris, Percy A.
Longbottom, A. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Longden, F.


Chater, Daniel
Haycock, A. W.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Church, Major A. G.
Hayday, Arthur
Lowth, Thomas


Clarke, J. S.
Hayes, John Henry
Lunn, William


Cluse, W. S.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Compton, Joseph
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
McElwee, A.


Cove, William G.
Herriotts, J.
McEntee. V. L.


Daggar, George
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Dallas, George
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
McShane, John James


Dalton, Hugh
Hollins, A.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Dickson, T.
Horrabin, J. F.
Mansfield, W.


March, S.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Sullivan, J.


Marcus, M.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Sutton, J. E.


Markham, S. F.
Rathbone, Eleanor
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Marley, J.
Raynes, W. R.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Marshall, F.
Richards, R.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Mathers, George
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Thurtle, Ernest


Matters, L. W.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Tillett, Ben


Messer, Fred
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Tinker, John Joseph


Middleton, G.
Ritson, J.
Toole, Joseph


Millar, J. D.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Tout, W. J.


Mills, J. E.
Romeril, H. G.
Townend, A. E.


Milner, Major J.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Montague, Frederick
Rowson, Guy
Turner, B.


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Vaughan, D. J.


Morley, Ralph
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Viant, S. P.


Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Walkden, A. G.


Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Sanders, W. S.
Walker, J.


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sawyer, G. F.
Wallace, H. W.


Mort, D. L.
Scrymgeour, E.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Moses, J. J. H.
Scurr, John
Watkins, F. C.


Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Sexton, James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Muff, G.
Shield, George William
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Muggeridge, H. T.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wellock, Wilfred


Murnin, Hugh
Shillaker, J. F.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Nathan, Major H. L.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Naylor, T. E.
Simmons, C. J.
West, F. R.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sinkinson, George
Westwood, Joseph


Noel Baker, P. J.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
White, H. G.


Oldfield, J. R.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Lady wood)


Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Palin, John Henry
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Paling, Wilfrid
Snell, Harry
Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Winterton, G. E. (Lelcester, Loughb'gh)


Perry, S. F.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Wise, E. F.


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Stamford, Thomas W.
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Phillips, Dr. Marion
Stephen, Campbell
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)



Potts, John S.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Price, M. P.
Strauss, G. R.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. A.




Barnes.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ganzoni, Sir John
Mond, Hon. Henry


Albery, Irving James
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)


Atholl, Duchess of
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Atkinson, C.
Greaves-Lord, Sir walter
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Mulrhead, A. J.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Berry, Sir George
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
O'Connor, T. J.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bracken, B.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ramsbotham, H.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Remer, John R.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Haslam, Henry C.
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ruggles-Brisc, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Salmon, Major I.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hurd, Percy A.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Cowan, D. M.
Iveagh, Countess of
Savery, S. S.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield. Hallam)


Dalkeith, Earl of
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Smithers, Waldron


Dawson, Sir Philip
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Long, Major Eric
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Eden, Captain Anthony
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Fielden, E. B.
Meller, R. J.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Tinne, J. A.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Todd, Capt. A. J.




Train, J.
Wayland, Sir William A.
Womersley, W. J.


Turton, Robert Hugh
Wells, Sydney R.
Worthlngton-Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)



Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Sir George Penny and Sir Victor


Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.
Withers, Sir John James
Warrender.

CLAUSE 18.—(Powers of special Commissioners to obtain copies of registers of securities.)

The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall)—in page 16, line 10, to leave out Sub-section (1)—would negative the Clause, and, therefore, I do not select it.

Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, in page 16, line 11, after the word "any," to insert the word "incorporated."

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I have been given to understand, Mr. Young, that you were proposing to take together this Amendment and the next three—(1) in page 16, line 11, to leave out the words "body of persons, whether incorporated or not," and to insert instead thereof the words "public company"; (2) to leave out the words "body of persons, whether incorporated or not," and to insert instead thereof the words "company or corporation"; and (3) to leave out the words "whether incorporated or not."

The CHAIRMAN: The point is that, if the present Amendment falls, the others fall with it.

Captain BOURNE: In that case, am I not entitled to discuss the four Amendments as one? I think they are consequential.

The CHAIRMAN: These four Amendments are consequential.

Mr. SNOWDEN: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Burgin) and two of his political colleagues—in page 16, line 11, to leave out the words "body of persons, whether incorporated or not," and to insert instead thereof the words "company or corporation"—is somewhat different from the others, and, with a slight alteration, I think I might be prepared to accept it. I should not like any Ruling to prevent my taking that course.

The CHAIRMAN: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to accept that Amendment, I will select it.

Captain BOURNE: It is a little difficult to understand precisely what is the meaning of Sub-section (1) of Clause 18 as it is drafted, and I gather from the last remark of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he himself is becoming a little doubtful as to what exactly the Sub-section means. It reads as follows:
The special commissioners may cause to be served upon any body of persons, whether incorporated or not, a notice requiring them to deliver to those commissioners within a specified time a copy, certified in such manner as may be specified, of the whole of, or any specified class of entries in, any register containing the names of the holders of any securities issued by them.
It seems to me that the whole of this Sub-section turns upon the meaning of a body of persons, and how a body of persons which has not at any rate some corporate existence can issue shares, or, if it does issue shares, can be in a position to make such a return as the right hon. Gentleman obviously requires. I can understand a corporation, a company, or an incorporated body—which would probably include either a company, or a corporation, or a body incorporated by Royal Charter which has the right to issue securities—being in a position to render a list of those securities to the Special Commissioners if they so desire, but I am very puzzled when the right hon. Gentleman says:
any body of persons whether incorporated or not.
There are, I believe, in the City, certain bodies known as issuing houses, which underwrite loans and take certain responsibilities for issuing Government loans to the public. In many cases, I understand, such bodies are not incorporated, and are not companies in any sense of the word, and I very much doubt whether, if a notice of the type described in this Sub-section were served on one of these issuing houses, they would be in a position to supply this information. I do not see how the right hon. Gentleman can possibly hope to obtain the information that he wishes to get, namely, as I understand this Sub-section, information as to who are the holders of specific securities issued by a definite body, whether a corporation, a public company,
a private company, or even a body incorporated by Royal Charter. I cannot understand how he is going to get that information from any body except the body whose shares are actually held, and which has a register of shareholders or stock-holders. Each of these bodies is obliged to keep a stock or share register, and can supply the necessary information, but when the right hon. Gentleman speaks of
a body of persons whether incorporated or not,
who on earth does he think he is going to deal with? I do not think it would be possible to ask for this information from trustees, because they do not issue securities, but conceivably, under this Clause as it is drafted, the Special Commissioners might send a request to a, house that issued securities, for information as to what had happened to those securities. They, however, would not know, because they do not keep a register of the shares when once they have been sold. I feel that this Clause, objectionable as it is in many ways, is purely nonsensical and could not possibly be put into operation. I conclude that the right hon. Gentleman's object is to get information as to shares issued by private companies, about which we shall have more to say at a later stage. Otherwise, I cannot see whom he wishes to get at. Under the Clause as it stands, he has power to require trustees to give particulars of shares that they hold in trust for the benefit of other people. He has power to ask the secretary of any company to give him information about holdings. But I am extraordinarily doubtful what power he wants to take, or why he wishes to take it, and we are entitled to a full explanation as to the exact effect if it is granted. It is too vague to put into an Act of Parliament.
The right hon. Gentleman has said that he is not a lawyer. He may believe that certain words in an Act of Parliament will bear a meaning which is quite suitable, but the courts of law have frequently placed on words in an Act of Parliament a meaning which was not in the mind of the Minister or of the House of Commons, and it has caused the utmost confusion in the law subsequently. When
you come to deal with a Finance Act, an Act which affects not only the money but the business and the activities of hundreds of thousands of His Majesty's subjects, it is up to us to see that no language is inserted which is not absolutely clear, so that there can be no reasonable doubt as to how the judges will interpret it. We cannot attempt to foretell what the judges may do, but it is our business to simplify the language and make it as clear as we can, so that any possibility of litigation arising out of a phrase like "any body of persons, whether incorporated or not" may be reduced to a minimum.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: This is one of a number of Amendments on the Paper in the names of the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench. Their next Amendment is to leave out the words "body of persons whether incorporated or not" and to insert the words "public company." The main point of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech was that there should be no necessity for including the words "whether incorporated or not." I gather that he has no objection to leaving in the word "incorporated." The reason why the words "or not" were inserted is this. This power, of course, can only apply to a body of persons who own a register of securities, and it was thought possible that there might be some body of persons holding a register of securities who would not come within the legal interpretation of an incorporated body and the words "or not" were put in as a precaution. It may be an unnecessary precaution, and I am not very particular about them, and I am prepared to leave out the words "body of persons, whether incorporated or not" and to substitute the words "body corporate." That is following a phrase in Clause 11. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be satisfied with what I now offer, he will probably be willing to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I should like to ask what we are doing here. Let me read the first three lines:
The special commissioners may cause to be served upon any body of persons, whether incorporated or not, a notice requiring them to deliver"—
What is the Clause driving at? I am quite at a loss to understand precisely
what it means. We should be allowed to know exactly the motive underlying it before we deal with the Amendments. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman gives vent to some expression of impatience, but we are entitled to know what the Clause driving at before we can deal with the details. Presumably it is cast in order to, allow the revenue authorities to check the returns for Surtax. Is it a fact that any companies which have to lodge a register have refused to any clerk of the Revenue Department permission to make a copy? Why, therefore, do we have this Clause, which compels these companies that lodge registers at Somerset House on payment of a small fee to send in a return of their shares, instead of our being satisfied by a clerk from the revenue calling to make a copy of it? I gather from the Chancellor that there are certain companies which do not lodge registers there. I understand that statutory companies and companies which hold a charter are not compelled to lodge these returns. The Clause, if I understand it rightly, is by a side wind going to compel railway companies and chartered companies, like the Chartered Bank of India, to lodge their list of proprietors on payment of a prescribed fee so that the Inland Revenue authorities can say, "Look at these names. Mr. Snooks has sent in a return for Sur-tax. Let us see if he has included a certain amount of money which he holds as shares in these statutory companies?" It is a petty, trumpery way of getting at Sur-tax returns. What is more, if you are going to allow the Revenue authorities under the first three lines of the Clause to get in these returns, see how the Chancellor of the Exchequer will stultify himself. What is he going to do about the bonds to bearer of the 5 per cent. War Loan, or, say, the new Reparations loan? This clause won't catch them.

The CHAIRMAN: We cannot widen the discussion. I would point out this is an Amendment leaving out certain words and that the words "body corporate" should be inserted.

Mr. SAMUEL: I am totally against the Clause as it stands in the first three lines.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Would it not be much better to dispose of the rather narrow point with which we are now dealing, and allow the hon. Gentleman to deal with the other point on the question, "That the Clause stand part"?

The CHAIRMAN: I assume the hon. Gentleman will do that.

Mr. SAMUEL: I will, of course, obey the Chairman's Ruling. The point I am making is to show that the first three lines are petty and trumpery, and will not carry the revenue to the length which the Chancellor wants to go. I warn the Committee and the country that if these three lines are imported into our legislation, even with the words which are proposed by my hon. Friend, sooner or later it will be found that you will not get the information as to Surtax which you require, and the country will have to adopt a further Clause to broaden out the oppressively inquisitional policy now laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The CHAIRMAN: I would ask the hon. Member to look at the Amendment.

Mr. SAMUEL: For this reason, if I can go on at a later period and deal with the general aspect of the question, I will confine myself to saying that. I think if we allow the Clause, even as proposed to be amended by the words suggested by the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Burgin), we should have a very full explanation of where this Clause takes us before we accept the gift which the Chancellor offers us to omit the words:
body of persons, whether incorporated or not
and to insert the words "company or corporation." I warn my hon. Friends behind me that there is a trap in this Clause, and we ought not to go very much further until we have had it thoroughly well examined by every Member on this side.

Major NATHAN: The arguments advanced by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) on the Amendment standing in his name and that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) are very much the same in principle as those underlying the Amendment standing in the names of myself and some of my hon. Friends, which,
I understand, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with slight modification, is prepared to accept.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: indicated assent.

Major NATHAN: As far as my friends and I are concerned, not only do we accept the forms of words which the Chancellor has suggested, but they seem in all the circumstances more apt than the words which appear on the Order Paper, that is if the object of the Clause means what I believe it means. What I say is without prejudice to any argument I may feel called upon to advance later on the Clause. I should like to address myself to one point raised in the discussion between the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because I am not at all sure that there may not be a little misunderstanding as to what is meant by the term "issue." I have been at some pains to look into this matter, because it seems to me that the draftsman of the Clause has not had a completely clear conception of the technical meaning of that term. I think the cases make it clear, and they will be familiar to the Attorney-General, that the term "issue" can only be applicable to a body corporate, whether it be a company under the Companies Act or a chartered company, or any other kind of body corporate. In these circumstances, the use of the term "issue" should not be in reference to a body of persons which is unincorporated. I do not believe that the term "issuing house" would be covered here, because it is quite the usual thing to refer to a business firm in the City as an issuing house when it is not a house which acts for the purpose of making an issue, but only acts as the agent for those who are issuing. In view of what the Chancellor said, I do not wish to labour the point any further than to say that, as I understand it, the term "body corporate" is wider than the term first proposed, and includes chartered companies, and even municipalities.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: That is so.

Major NATHAN: It includes bodies of that kind, such as foreign banks, and so on, and I would adopt that form of wording.

Mr. SMITHERS: I want to raise a point with reference to the Amendment
and to the Chancellor's suggested alteration. Should I be in order in pursuing it on these lines, seeing that the Chancellor's suggested alteration is not before the Committee? May we be allowed to speak on that? The Clause says that the special commissioners may cause a notice to be served upon any body of persons and, if the new words are inserted, it would be "company or corporation." The notice requires them to deliver a copy of the entries, according to the last words of Sub-section (1), "issued by them." I venture to say that that Subsection (1) in actual practice would not be welcome, and I will tell the Chancellor why. Take the case of certain classes of businesses, such as the banks—one of the "Big Five," which is a company or corporation. Many companies and corporations take a block of shares from some registered company, whether it be a railway or any other commercial undertaking, and put them into their vaults, and issue against these securities deposit receipts. I will illustrate the point by giving one particular example, which is a very big one. The Westminster Bank in London has in its vaults thousands of shares of the Canadian Pacific Railway of Canada, and against them they issue receipts.

The CHAIRMAN: We must keep to the Amendment. The question is not, as the hon. Member puts it, that the words "company or corporation" should be put in, but that the words "body corporate" should be inserted, and he must confine himself to the Amendment.

Mr. SMITHERS: This is really a point of substance which it is difficult to put.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now raising the whole question, "That the Clause stand part."

Sir D. HERBERT: On that point of Order. If we are to be ruled out from discussing this question now on the Amendment suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, shall we have an opportunity of discussing it again? I was under the impression that we were to discuss both Amendments, including that suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but if we are to confine ourselves to the Amendment which has actually been moved, then we must ask to be at liberty to discuss the other Amendment when it is moved.

The CHAIRMAN: The only Amendment before the Committee is that which liars been moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford. The Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested that the words "of persons whether incorporated or not" should come out, and the word "corporate" should be inserted. In the meantime, we are dealing with the question of incorporated or not incorporated.

Sir D. HERBERT: I understand that we shall not be debarred from discussing this Amendment when proposed?

The CHAIRMAN: Certainly not, unless you discuss it now. We are dealing only with the words "incorporated or body corporate."

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Might I suggest that we are in the dark about this Clause? Would you, Mr. Young, allow a roaming discussion over the whole Clause?

The CHAIRMAN: No; we tried that on the last Clause, and were not successful.

Mr. SMITHERS: May I put this point? This Amendment happens to cover the type of business with which I am familiar, and I happen to know all the technicalities of the case. It is a real point of substance, and, if the Clause is passed, even with the Chancellor's words, it may be unworkable, and we shall have passed a Clause which is sheer nonsense. I want to try and stop that. Would you, Mr. Young, tell me when I can raise this point of the deposited receipts and securities? On which Amendment can I raise it—on the Amendment itself or on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part"? Would it be in order then?

Sir D. HERBERT: Is this Amendment not the best way?

The CHAIRMAN: This Amendment is purely dealing with the word "corporate."

Mr. SMITHERS: The point is—

The CHAIRMAN: The Question before the Committee is the inclusion of the word "incorporated" and the omission of the words
body of persons, whether incorporated or not.

Mr. SMITHERS: If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to put certain duties upon the body corporate, I want to show to the Committee that that body cannot carry them out. Is not this the time to raise the question? The Westminster Bank is a body corporate. May I have a ruling on the point?

The CHAIRMAN: At the moment, it would be a better plan to keep to the Amendment which is before the Committee, namely, in page 16, line 11, after the word "any" to insert the word "incorporated."

Mr. SMITHERS: The Westminster Bank, being a corporate body, will have certain duties placed upon it which it cannot perform. I should like to be allowed to continue my illustration. This is a very common thing and happens every day. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company of Canada has many millions of capital, and the Westminster Bank, for the convenience of its clients, has many thousands of shares in its vaults, and against these shares it issues Westminster Bank certificates. These certificates are so numerous that there is a market for them. They differ slightly in price from the ordinary Canadian Pacific shares and they command a market. The Westminster Bank does this sort of thing for the convenience of clients, and it appeals very largely to foreign holders, because the Westminster Bank collects the dividends and carries out other services for them.

Mr. DENMAN: On a point of Order. May I point out that the argument of the hon. Member is in no way related to the specific Amendment, which is whether a body is to be incorporated or not?

The CHAIRMAN: I must draw the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that he must only discuss the Amendment to insert the word "incorporated," and the subsequent Amendment which is consequential.

Mr. SMITHERS: I am doing my best.

The CHAIRMAN: We cannot discuss the operations of the Midland Bank or any other bank.

Mr. SMITHERS: I have not mentioned the Midland Bank, but the Westminster Bank.

The CHAIRMAN: Nor any other bank.

Mr. SMITHERS: I really desire to keep within your Ruling. This is a point of real substance.

The CHAIRMAN: I take it that all points which are put to me are points of real substance. I must ask the hon. Member not to continue to widen the discussion on this particular Amendment in the way he is doing.

Mr. SMITHERS: I will sit down now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to jeer. I will sit down now, reserving the right to bring up this point on a later Amendment, when I hope I shall be given an opportunity of developing my argument.

Sir JOHN WITHERS: I think that every hon. Member will agree that the real difficulty is the use of the word "incorporated" and the words "issuing-house." If we could know exactly what "issuing-house" means—perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer could give a definition later on—it would clear up the matter.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: In reply to the query put by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers), I think that the explanation was given rightly by the hon. and gallant Member for North - East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan). The issuing-house, I understand, is not the house which issues the shares.

Mr. SMITHERS: On a point of Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman replying to the arguments which I have put forward?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I am replying to the point which was put by the hon. Member for Cambridge University. I was saying that the issuing house acts as an agent of the company. It is not the issuing house which issues the shares; it is the company which issues the shares. The issuing house does not have a register of the shareholders. That can only be in the custody of the company or the corporation. That, I think is the correct construction to be placed upon the words "issuing house."

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I wish to raise a point which arises out of the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne). I would ask whether the word "incorporated" is not the best word to fit in here? I do not propose to touch upon the Amendment which the Chancellor of the Exchequer foreshadowed just now as an Amendment which he might be able to accept in lieu of the Amendment which is upon the Paper, but which is not going to be moved by hon. Members below the Gangway. When that Amendment is brought forward, I shall desire to discuss it. I have listened with great care and attention to the speeches on this Amendment. What really amazed me was that, after the extraordinarily clear explanation by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford as to why these words should be brought in, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not refer at all to the Amendment, but passed on to some other Amendment. That fact immediately caused me to think that probably the words we propose are best. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer leaves a thing alone, there is likely to be something pretty good in it.
I am desirous in this case of getting inserted only those words which will most efficiently represent the opinion of the House of Commons. The words proposed on this side of the Committee would show that the intention of the Committee was that any body of persons, whether incorporated or joined together in a company, should come under this particular Sub-section. I am convinced that whatever promise or semi-promise there may be with regard to the future, we shall be well advised to accept the words in our Amendments. They are clear and good English. Do the Government object to them? They have not given any reply as far as this Amendment is concerned. I ask them to say what objection they have to this extremely simple word which we wish to insert in this Amendment which, I think, will carry out the meaning of the Committee as a whole. For that reason, I do say that I shall be sorry if this Amendment is dropped and if we do not get a chance to put it into the Bill. I think it would help to clarify the Clause, and that is one of the main objects of this Committee.

Question, "That the word 'incorporated' be there inserted," put, and negatived.

Major NATHAN: I beg to move, in page 16, line 11, to leave out the words "of persons whether incorporated or not," and to insert instead thereof the word "corporate."
I understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to move this Amendment.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Here, again, I think we ought to have a clear understanding where this is leading. The type of company or corporation Which you have just mentioned would include a bank, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, in regard to the Canadian Pacific shares. I hope hon. Gentlemen on my side of the House will realise where this Clause is taking them. If a bank, as is very often the case, holds large numbers, perhaps thousands, of shares in its name, under this Clause the revenue authorities in future will be able to go to that bank and do what I believe has never been done before, namely, compel the bank to give the list of customers of the thousands of shares.

The CHAIRMAN: We are not discussing the Clause. The Clause will be discussed in due course.

Mr. SAMUEL: I quite agree. I am not going to disobey your Ruling, but I want to point out that by putting in these words "company or corporate body"—

The CHAIRMAN: We are not putting in those words. We are only putting in the word "corporate."

Mr. SAMUEL: But if you put in the word "corporate," you then get a bank covered. If we accept the words that the Chairman has used, we get a bank included, and henceforth no bank will be able to retain—[Interruption.]

Mr. DENMAN: On a point of Order. By the words as they stand, clearly a bank is included. "Incorporated or not" includes the bank. Altering this Clause to include the word "corporate" does not exclude or include the bank.

Mr. SMITHERS: We shall have to take out the word "of."

The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to conduct the business.

Mr. SAMUEL: I will content myself with having raised my protest and having drawn the attention of the Committee to what these words mean.

Mr. ALBERY: I have listened most intently to the discussion of this Clause, but I must confess, with the best will in the world, that I am unable to understand its meaning and why this particular word is better than the other words. I think the Committee ought thoroughly to understand the change and why it is being made. I hope the learned Attorney-General will give an explanation of this change before it is made.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I. quite agree with my hon. Friend above the Gangway in his appeal for some attempt to be made to clarify the reasons as to why these new words have to be adopted. Earlier in the evening on another Amendment in which some of us did not join, we were told that a proposed form of words was better, but we were not told really why they were better. We were told that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not accept the Amendment, but he would accept the next Amendment if an Amendment to it was put in. In the first place, it is most confusing to the Committee as a whole that on an occasion such as this we should have a manuscript Amendment, or something which virtually is a manuscript Amendment. I think my hon. Friend below the Gangway is perfectly justified in objecting. It has been extraordinarily difficult to follow through the various speeches which we have heard the different varieties of the use of the words "corporation," "corporate," or "incorporate" and other words of that kind. May I ask the Government, for the sake of clarity, that some expression should be given as to what is really meant on this occasion. That is all that is wanted. Let the Government through the Law Officer—and I see he is dying to be at it—give us a simple explanation of what is actually meant by the words as now accepted.
We have never had that clear explanation, and I think it is only due to the Committee that before we accept the form of words, which, as has been
pointed out by a considerable number of Members, must affect the welfare of thousands of big industries in this country, we should know precisely and exactly where we stand. I am the last person in the world to say anything to prolong the agony of this discussion, and I can only say that I am making a request to the Government which, in their own interest they will be wise to carry out. If the Attorney-General would give us a simple explanation of this matter it would be particularly valuable from the purely legal point of view. It would also be very interesting to know how he is able to accept half an Amendment from the benches below the Gangway. It looks as if this Amendment has been used as a sort of stepping stone from the half way house below the Gangway to the full position of hon. Members opposite.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must really deal with the Amendment before the Committee.

Mr. WILLIAMS: That is what I am endeavouring to do. I was trying to find out exactly what the Amendment means, because so far we have had no explanation at all. I suspect that it has only one object in view and that is the increased incorporation of certain bodies in different parts of this House.

Mr. SMITHERS: When you were putting the question just now, Mr. Chairman, I ventured to point out that the word "of" should also come out, and you requested me to allow you to conduct the business of the Committee. May I point out respectfully that the Amendment if carried in its present form will mean nonsense, because you have put the question to leave out the words:
persons whether incorporated or not.

The CHAIRMAN: Let me read to the hon. Member the Amendment which we are discussing. The Clause if the Amendment is carried will read in this way—
The special commissioners may cause to be served upon any body corporate a notice requiring them
and so on—

Mr. SMITHERS: As you put the question, it would read:
A body of corporate

The CHAIRMAN: I read out the words exactly as they were sent to me, and I pointed out to the Committee that the word "body" was not proposed to be left out. I am not responsible in any way for what the hon. Member understands.

Mr. SMITHERS: In all sincerity I am only trying to put matters right. If you leave out the word "of" the Amendment makes sense, but, as I heard you put the Question, you did not leave out the word "of."

The CHAIRMAN: I am not responsible for what the hon. Member hears. I distinctly read out the Amendment in the correct form, and the hon. Member has no right to question the way in which the Question was put.

Sir D. HERBERT: I think the word "of" must come out.

The CHAIRMAN: It is either my accent or the hearing of hon. Members, but I put the Question to leave out the words:
of persons whether incorporated or not
and to insert the word
corporate.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir D. HERBERT: I beg to move, in page 16, line 13, after the word "time, to insert the words "being not less than twenty-one days."
10.0 p.m.
I am not particular as to the number of days. The whole point is that when you get a body corporate which is required to furnish a copy of the register within a specified time that the specified time should be something which is not less than a reasonable period. The request may come at a time when the Stock Exchange is closed and it may be a matter of great inconvenience to produce the copy within a very short period. This information, I presume, is wanted for the purposes of revenue proceedings——

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: Perhaps it will save time if I say that I am prepared to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, in page 16, to leave out from the word "copy" in line 13, to the word "any" in line 15, and to insert instead thereof the word "of."
The effect of this Amendment is quite clear. My reason for moving this Amendment is to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he means by the words:
any specified class of entries.
If you take a big public company like a railway company the number of entries in the register is perfectly enormous. They run into many hundreds of thousands of names. What does the Chancellor of the Exchequer mean by "any specified class of entries." Does he want all the entries beginning with "J" or all the entries in the name of Smith. If they have to take out the definite class of people who own stock of over £5,000 it is going to take an enormous amount of work and trouble on the part of clerks and accountants. The Government are entitled to have a copy of the register but if they are going to ask for any specified class of entry to be taken out it will mean an enormous amount of labour to these companies and it is a task which I do not think they should be asked to fulfil. If the Inland Revenue had permission to go through the register themselves they could pick out such names as they required. That is the business of Somerset House. I do not see why we should impose on the taxpayer the duty which is really the duty of the Inland Revenue. When the Inland Revenue have got a copy of the register any investigations which they wish to make they can make for themselves. This is an attempt to push on to the taxpayer more of the work of the Inland Revenue.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: If the Amendment were carried it would have precisely the opposite effect to that which the hon. and gallant Member apparently wants to secure. If the words that he proposes to leave out were deleted the Special Commissioners would have to ask for a complete copy of the register. The reason for the inclusion in the Clause of the words "as may be specified" is that the Commissioners need not ask for a complete copy, but for any particular part of it which might be of service for the purpose that they have in view. It must be remembered that this power is sought in order to check the income for Super-tax. It would be obviously absurd for the Special Commissioners to ask a railway company, which might have a
hundred thousand registered shareholders, to give a complete copy of the register of holdings. It is very unlikely that the Special Commissioners would use their powers to ask for returns of holdings beyond a certain amount. The purpose of the words of the Clause is to lessen the trouble of the companies and not to increase it. After this explanation I hope that the hon. and gallant Member will not press the Amendment.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I think the words of the Clause are extremely clumsy, and between now and Report they should be improved. Why does the Clause not refer to "any specified section" instead of "any specified class"? A company might have debenture, preference and deferred "classes" of shareholders. The Clause is confusing classes or types of securities with a section of the register so far as it refers to names. I do not know at what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aiming. He wants to get a section of the register which contains all the names beginning with, say, the letter "B."

Mr. SNOWDEN: No.

Mr. SAMUEL: Then does he mean that he wants a section of pages out of the register with a certain number of names? In that case the word "class" is not applicable. I suggest that what the right hon. Gentleman means is a specified section of the names. I suggest that the words should be "specified section" instead of "specified class," or they might, be changed to "entries of specified classes of securities." In any case the right hon. Gentleman should tell us exactly what he means. Up to the present his explanation has left us entirely in confusion.

Major NATHAN: Frankly, I confess to have been surprised and disappointed at the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has told us for the first time in this debate upon this Clause what is the object operating in his mind as to this Clause. He has told us in terms that his object is to check the Surtax returns. In other words this is an inquisitorial Clause of the Bill. It is a Clause which is designed to give, and will have the effect of giving, to the Inland Revenue Special Commissioners certain powers which so far, over a period of almost 100 years, Parliament has denied to them. Never once in the whole course
of fiscal legislation in this country has it been suggested by any Government that the taxpayer should be called upon to disclose his books to the Inland Revenue. Even to-day, though most companies present their accounts to the Tax Inspector, there is no obligation upon them to do so, and were they to refuse to do so the tax inspector is powerless to compel production. What has happened in this country in the past, in contrast to what has happened in Continental countries where there has been a heavy Income Tax imposed, has been, speaking broadly, that here the taxpayer has run with and not against the taxing authorities.
I regard this Clause as of serious import, because it erects a barrier between the Inland Revenue authorities and the taxpayer, and it means that the Inland Revenue Commissioners are authorised by Act of Parliament to say, not, "I accept your return as being prima facie a correct return," but "I refuse to accept your return as being anything but prima facie a false return." In considering the Amendment before the Committee it is material to hear in mind the position of the special commissioners as things are. In the first place, let it not be forgotten that the taxpayer, when he puts his signature to an income Tax or Sur-tax return, is making a declaration in respect of which, if it be false, he is liable to all the penalties for perjury. It is perhaps too little recognised, and it is well that it should be known, that an Income Tax or Sur-tax return has about it all the solemnity of an affidavit. Throughout the length and breadth of the land in all sorts of legal proceedings, and proceedings in which it is desired to impress upon a man the solemnity of his actions, either affidavits or statutory declarations are accepted, as a matter of course, as prima facie evidence of the facts to which they purport to relate. Here, for the first time, in this taxing Measure it is proposed to take the contrary view.
Let the Committee remember the penalties under the Act relating to perjury and under the Income Tax Acts, to which anyone is liable for making a false return. He may have to pay triple duty, not merely on the tax which he has evaded, but on the whole of the tax for which he is liable. I do not believe that except here and there and now and then there is
any wilful refusal to make accurate returns. Just consider where this proposal takes us. If the words "of the whole of the register" are left as they stand, you will have this very odd situation as pointed out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the special commissioners may ask for the complete register of any company however large, and there are some companies within my knowledge in which the number of shareholders is 170,000, and I am now informed of another one in which the number is little short of 300,000. The right hon. Gentleman said that the object is to check the Sur-tax returns. I have already indicated the checks now in existence which seem not only ample but effective for this purpose. If the right hon. Gentleman refers to Table 63 in the 72nd Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, he will observe that the total number of Surtax taxpayers in this country is just over 95,000; whereas in the case of one particular company it may be necessary under this proposal to ask for a return of 290,000 names involving an enormous amount of work, involving the power on the part of the Inland Revenue to investigate the details of every one of those entries, and unnecessarily involving a vast expenditure upon additional staff either by the Inland Revenue or by the companies who have to make these copies. "But," the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, "We may not want to ask for a copy of the whole register. We may only wish to ask for a specified class of entries in any register." What does that mean? Look at the last words of the Clause.
'Entry' means, in relation to any register, so much thereof as relates to the securities held by any one person.
Under the provision, as it stands in the Bill, the special commissioners have only two alternatives before them. They can either ask for a copy of the whole register, or they can ask for a specified class of entries. In the first place, they get the 298,000 names, or it may be more in some cases, with all the particulars, involving all the waste of unproductive labour that would be involved in making those returns, or they ask for particulars as regards an individual. I wonder if the Chancellor of the Exchequer has ever considered how this will actually work out in practice. Let me tell him—I think it will surprise him—how, if I understand it correctly, as I have taken
care to try to do, I believe it will work out. I will use no names except my own. I believe that under this Bill, unless the Special Commissioners ask for the whole of the return, which I am assuming for the moment they will not do, they can only ask for the register as far as it relates to the securities held by any one person, and I assume for the moment that that refers to myself.
Assume that the Special Commissioners have reason to believe—they have no grounds or evidence of it—that my Super-tax return is incorrect, and they may think, though they have no grounds for it at all, that I hold shares in, let me say, the British-American Tobacco Company. I have in fact no shares in that company. I say that in case an inquiry should be made under this Clause. The Special Commissioners send a notice to the Company, and they say, "Under Section 18 of the Finance Act we ask you to make us a return of the entry in relation to your register in so far as it relates to the securities held by Nathan." The registrar of the British-American Tobacco Company says to himself and his colleagues, "I have had an inquiry from the Special Commissioners under Section 18 about Nathan, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the object of that Section was to prevent false Super-tax returns. There is something rather funny about that, but they have asked for it, and they must have it." He sends for a clerk to make out the entry so far as it relates to the securities held by Nathan. There is no right under this Bill to ask for any class of securities. [Interruption.] Sub-section (1) of the Clause says that the Special Commissioners may cause to be served a notice to deliver a copy of the whole of any register containing the names of the holders of any securities issued by them, or any specified class of entries. What does "entry" mean?
'entry' means in relation to any register so much thereof as relates to the securities held by any one person.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer shakes his head. I do him the justice of believing that he is trying to follow my point, and he will do me the justice of believing that I am not speaking just for
the sake of occupying the time of the Committee, but that this is a point which I believe requires to be cleared up. In other words, unless the whole register is to be asked for, what are to be asked for are particulars, it may be in regard to several classes of shares, but particulars with regard to an individual, and they have to choose between saying to the company, "Produce a copy of your whole register," or, "Produce a copy of your register so far as it relates, in all your classes of shares or debentures, to Nathan." I am not speaking without having sought very eminent advice on this point, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will seek the advice of the Attorney-General, he will find, I believe, that the interpretation that I am giving, however much it may not be meant, is the only interpretation which will be given by a court of justice to the words to which I have directed the attention of the Committee. I have occasion to be concerned in matters of this kind in every-day life, and we are told time after time in the law courts, "It does not matter what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in the House of Commons, we are here to interpret the actual words that Parliament has enshrined in the Statute Book."
I am always willing to accept the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but, having given this matter the study which I have, I feel that I have no alternative save to ask him with the utmost respect to make further inquiries into the matter. The point which I wish to impress upon the attention of the Committee, because I think that it is vital, is this. I was putting the case of myself and the American Tobacco Company. Immediately it gets round in any company like the American Tobacco Company that certain inquiries are being made, and notices are being served about Nathan, they begin to talk inside the office; letters are written, and they pass through the letter book and are seen by all kinds and grades of clerks and officials of the company. It gets round to one's personal friends. You do not hear a whisper yourself; it does not come to you, but it comes to other people. They hear that inquiry is being made about Nathan's
holdings, and it goes round that there is something fishy about my Super-tax return. It goes down to my constituency. They hear something rather odd about me, and a question is asked at a meeting; a question has only to be asked at a meeting to be believed by half the constituency, however ill-founded it may be. Some inquiry is made, and it is found that an office boy in the American Tobacco Company saw a letter written by the Inland Revenue about Nathan.
You find your circle of political, professional and social friends easing off from you, and you do not know what it is about, but it is because the Special Commissioners have made inquiries. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite laugh, but I am sure that they will do me the justice of following the point which I am putting. There is nothing more valuable and important to a man who is in Parliamentary life, in however humble a capacity, or who is in professional or social life, than that his reputation should be maintained. The reason I oppose this Clause is because I believe that it will strike—I will not say a deliberate blow—but it will strike, or will be capable of striking, a damaging blow at the reputation of those who know nothing about what is going on, who are unable to defend themselves, and who will only be in a position to deny the implications which may turn out to be false when it is too late.

Sir D. HERBERT: On a point of Order. I did not hear the Amendment put and whether it was put from the Chair or not I am not sure, but I understand that it is intended to call on the next Amendment which stands in my name, and if that is so this Amendment should, of course, be put in such a form as to safeguard my Amendment.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I can assure the hon. Member that, I had that point in mind, and I will safeguard his Amendment.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: I have very great sympathy with the remarks made and the points so ably put by the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan). This is a very important Clause. I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is meant by the words:
certified in such manner as may be specified.
Are we to understand that a certain form is to be sent out to these companies by the Commissioners of Income Tax, asking for particulars of the shareholdings in their companies of any individual, whoever he may be? The Clause gives the Commissioners the power to try to find out from the companies concerned something which they think they have not found out by the direct requests which they have made to the individual taxpayer. If the Commissioners do not think that an individual taxpayer has made a proper return—though they may have no reason at all for the assumption, may only think they would like to find out a little more—they can say to the company, "Under Clause 18 of the Finance Act of 1930 we have power to ask you to give this information." This particular Clause would produce a condition of things which would put a premium against an individual having all his money in one company, because, as the hon. and gallant Member has already reminded us, such a demand on the part of the Commissioners would immediately create suspicion amongst the whole staff of the company from whom the return was asked. Without, any reason at all, it may be, the Commissioners would, in effect, be accusing this particular individual of sending in a false return of Income Tax.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer hag told us that he is inserting this Clause because he suspects that certain people are not making proper returns for Super-tax, but here he is not putting the onus on the individual, he is not saying to the individual, "Let me know the number of shares which you hold in these various companies," but is asking somebody else to supply that information. He is asking the company for the information, is saying to the company, "You are to be responsible for giving us this information because, in our estimation, somebody else is not playing the game." It is possible that companies may have to set up special staffs in order to supply the returns which are requested. As the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green has said, this is a most inquisitorial Clause, and one which ought to be resisted as much as possible on all sides of the House, because we are really giving the Commissioners powers which
they ought not to have. At the present moment the Commissioners have a perfect right to ask an individual to prove that his return is correct if they suspect that he has not made a proper return, but it is not fair to say to a company which has had nothing to do with the return made out, "You must give us the information we want behind the back of the individual who has sent in this return."
At the present time, we are trying to get back to a condition of more employment in this country and to increase the prosperity of our trade. Do you suppose, Mr. Dunnico, that an inquisitorial Clause of this kind which is going to increase the cost of the staff of those companies which have to get out those returns in a manner specified later on in the Bill that nobody seems to understand is one which will not inflict hardship upon those companies? When those returns, have been checked and have been found to be correct, what happens? Exactly what has been described by the hon. and gallant Member for North East Bethnal Green, namely, that a suspicion has been aroused in every company in which that particular individual holds shares. The secretary of the company is responsible for making those returns, and he is liable to a penalty of £50 if he does not give all the information required. I think it is a very serious matter to give new powers of this kind to the Commissioners, and I hope the Committee will see fit to accept this Amendment.

Sir A. POWNALL: In support of my view that this Clause will work unfairly, I would like to mention a case which was brought to my notice of an individual who was liable to Surtax, who held some ordinary shares in Messrs. Lever Brothers, and who was asked to give full particulars of his investments. He did so, and a few days later he had notice about some other shares which he held in Lever Brothers, but it turned out that they were held in joint names for other people. That is a case that came to my notice, and it shows that, in regard to the Surtax, the Special Commissioners have all the powers which they require. In this case Lever Brothers were asked to produce a different category of shares, and this individual was asked to reconcile the ordinary shares which he had returned with the preference shares in
his name. I think that shows that the powers which are now asked for are not required.
I have another special reason for opposing this Clause. As a member of the Royal Commission which considered this question, I had the privilege of investigating the powers of the Special Commissioners, and I came away filled with admiration of the way in which they discharged a very difficult task. I think we owe them a deep debt of gratitude, although I do not disguise the fact that there are certain individuals who try to avoid the payment of a tax which they ought to pay. It seems to me, speaking from recent experience, and having had the opportunity of probing into their affairs, that the powers which they already have are sufficient. While I should not be prepared to deny them any powers that they could really show to be necessary, I do not think that these particular words are justified, and, therefore, if the question is pressed to a Division, I shall certainly vote against them.

Mr. ATKINSON: There are two or three objections that I want to urge against this Clause. I do not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer appreciates the point made by the Mover of the Amendment. It is one thing to ask for something which is a copy, but it is another thing to put upon a body corporate the duty of selecting. The Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated, I thought—I could not hear him very well—that it was intended to ask for a return of all holders of more than a certain amount. Suppose that a railway company with 280,000 shareholders is asked to make a return of all shareholders holding more than 1,000 shares. As we know, a shareholder's name may be entered in a great number of places in the register, and you put upon some secretary or clerk the obligation of going through an endless list of names for the purpose of picking out those who hold a certain number of shares. If he makes a mistake and omits one, he becomes liable to a penalty of £50 because he has not made a true return. If it were merely a matter of making a copy, I suppose that what would be done in practice would be to photograph the register, which could be done with absolute accuracy and a considerable amount
of speed; but once you put upon the body corporate the duty of selecting, you are putting upon them a very serious obligation, and one which entails a great deal of expense and trouble.
The Committee will notice that there is no limit whatever to the number of times that this register may be asked for. As we know, the register of a big company must be constantly changing. On a Monday a request may be made for a copy of the register, and the following week the Commissioners would be entitled to ask for another copy if they thought fit. They can ask for it as often as they like. Think of the expense. I have calculated that it would cost about £70,000 to get a copy of the register of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company, which has some 280,000 shareholders. It is going to be a very expensive matter. The Commissioners can ask for these copies as often as they like, and, unless they ask for them pretty constantly, one does not see how they are going to keep in very close touch with these matters. There are a great many large companies in the country, and, if this Clause is going to be effective, it will be terribly expensive in its operation.
I do not quite follow the criticism of the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan). He suggested that an inquiry could be made about a particular person, but I am not quite sure about that. I do not pretend to know what a "specified class of entries" is, or what it means, but I can quite understand that, if a railway or any other company were asked to make a return about Mr. So-and-So of So-and-So, they might say that that was not a class of entries and decline to give the answer. But suppose that the company were asked to make a return of all shares held by anybody of the name of Nathan, that clearly would be a class, and they would be bound to do it.

Mr. E. BROWN: The hon. and learned Gentleman is speaking as a lawyer. May I, as a layman, put this point to him? Will he explain to the Committee what is meant by the interpretation in Sub-section (5), which reads as follows:
In this section the expression 'security' includes shares, stock, debentures and debenture stock and the expression 'entry' means, in relation to any register, so much thereof as relates to the securities held by any one person.
What is the meaning of the words "any one person," if they have not the meaning put upon them by my hon. and gallant Friend?

Mr. ATKINSON: That is an entry. The statement in the register "H. L. Nathan, 1,000 shares," is an entry, but I cannot, for my part, see that it is a class of entries. I think, however, that the hon. and gallant Member's point remains good in this way: If a railway company were asked to make a return of all shares held by people of the name of H. L. Nathan, that would be a class. I do not think, if they specify a particular person or address, that is a class, but the Commissioners have only to make it "persons of the name of H. L. Nathan" and that becomes a class. I may be wrong. It really indicates the difficulty of interpreting these Clauses. [Interruption.] Lawyers like these doubtful Clauses. It is the one thing that keeps them alive.
We constantly get rather ragged in the courts by judges saying, "Why cannot somebody in the House of Commons point out how difficult it is to interpret the words of this or that Clause?" I do not envy the court which has to interpret these words "specified class of entries." If what the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated is the real object, you are putting on the companies a very onerous burden. I should not like to have the duty put upon me of going to a register of two or three hundred thousand names and selecting those of a particular shareholder at the rate of 5s. a hundred. It is going to put very great expense on the company. You may have done it one week and you may be called upon to do it the next week, and again the third week. There is no limit to the number of occasions on which this can be done. If it is done to get some small amount of Super-tax out of a particular individual, at a very great cost to the State, the Clause is not really going to help the Exchequer and it is putting a burden on companies which ought not to be put upon them without great consideration, and at the same time it is setting up a form of back-door inquisition which is contrary to the whole spirit of the Income Tax Acts. You cannot call upon an individual to produce his securities on oath. If you do not go that far, why should you go behind his back and get the information from the company?
There is this curious point, that the entry is limited to securities held by any one person. That excludes joint entries. Can this Clause be evaded by a man entering his own shareholdings in his own name and that of his wife? Certainly trustee entries are excluded. May I point out another thing which is not germane to the Amendment. We have now adopted the expression "body corporate" and the word "then" ought to be altered to "it" in the third line of the Clause.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Jowitt): There is, I think, a certain amount of misapprehension in the minds of the Committee about the Clause, and some misapprehension as to the existing powers and the way in which they are used. It is, unfortunately, the fact that there are certain people who send in their tax returns, and occasionally forget to put in all their holdings. The result of such delinquency is that the other taxpayers have to bear the burden. Therefore, all sections of the House are clearly desirous of doing everything in their power to see that the revenue authorities have reasonable powers to see that the returns sent in are accurate and full. At the present time the position is that every taxpayer can be called upon to furnish a full and detailed list of the securities he possesses. That power is given under Section 22 of the Finance Act, 1922. What happens is that the authorities get returns sent in simply showing the gross sum of the interest on investments, and they want each particular investment shown and exactly how much is received from it. There is at the present time a most useful check on these returns which is availed of as a matter of everyday practice, and which results in a great many inaccuracies and forgotten information being brought to light. Broadly speaking, the returns of public companies registered at Somerset House can be inspected and the Inland Revenue authorities exercise their powers under Section 22 of the Finance Act, 1922, by getting the taxpayer to return a full and detailed list of securities while, at the same time, having a staff whose duty it is to investigate from time to time at Somerset House, and very often find
ing a discrepancy between the returns at Somerset House and the returns shown by the taxpayer on his list.
At the present moment there is this inadequacy which we want to remedy. The difficulty is, first, that the registers at Somerset House do not extend to debentures, and there is no means of finding out from Somerset House the details in regard to debentures or debenture stocks. Secondly—and perhaps more seriously—with regard to statutory companies, these are not required to keep registers at Somerset House at all. Consequently with regard to them there is a very big gap, and the Inland Revenue authorities therefore desire, in regard to debentures in all companies and with regard to holdings in statutory companies, to be armed with exactly the same powers as they possess to-day in regard to the ordinary taxpayers whose holdings are registered at Somerset House. That is the position which this Clause is designed to meet.
One or two objections have been raised in regard to the terminology of the Clause. I think the Committee has, to a certain, but not unreasonable, extent, to trust the Inland Revenue authorities to exercise their powers reasonably. On the whole, I think all sections of the Committee will agree—and we have had testimonials paid to them—that they do try fairly to exercise their powers. The natural course is not to require the full and complete register, but extracts from the registers, so that you may keep down their work, and ask them to confine themselves to the apparently larger interests, so that they need not be fogged up by whole masses of entries applying to small people with regard to whose returns there is really no point in checking. Therefore, in this Clause we give power to apply for either the whole or any specified class of entries. I entirely agree with what the last speaker said, that obviously if you ask for a return for the individual you are not asking for a specified class of entry. Possibly, again, I think I would agree that if you could imagine the Revenue authorities being so foolish as to make the request for all persons whose names appeared, that would not be a specified class, but we must assume that the Inland Revenue authorities will act with a modicum of common sense and will, in selecting classes, specify
classes by reason of the fact that the classes they want are the larger holders in order that they may check the returns.
That really deals with the main objection to the Clause. This power is not a new power. With regard to debenture holders and holders of debenture stock, there already exists, under Section 73 of the Companies Act, 1929, similar power. Any shareholder in a company has the right to require, or a debenture holder may on payment of a fee obtain, a copy of the company's register of debentures. Under the Local Loans Act, 1875, there is power also to obtain a copy of the register of securities issued by local authorities. So that that power already exists. It is suggested that the fee is inadequate, but the fee is the same as is provided under Section 43 of the recent Rating and Valuation Act. We are really following precedent in keeping to the fee which the last Government selected as being proper. Therefore, for that reason I hope that the Committee will realise the reasonableness of the position.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: The learned Attorney-General is dealing broadly with objections expressed with regard to the matter by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had been in the Committee when the Chancellor of the Exchequer put in the words "body corporate" he would realise that something has happened to which he has not referred. A body corporate is a bank, and hitherto the Revenue has not compelled the banks to disclose the business of their customers. This Clause, with the words "body corporate" put in, will have this effect. Is the Attorney-General going to compel corporate bodies like banks to disclose what securities they hold for their customers?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Member, if he looks at the Clause, will see that the register, of which we are going to ask for a copy, is a register containing the names of the holders of any securities issued by them. I was here when the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out that the issuing house does not issue securities in the ordinary way. A bank holding securities for customers does not issue those securities.

Mr. SMITHERS: It does.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If the hon. Member will allow me, it does not.
There may be exceptional cases where a bank issues equivalent securities, but that is a different matter altogether. If I am asked to say whether the bank has to disclose details relating to its customers' business, it is clear that, anyone reading the Clause will see that it is not the case, and that it relates exclusively to registers containing securities issued by them. Therefore, the point which the hon. Member has in mind is one about which he need not really concern himself either by warning me or the Committee.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: The effect of this Clause will be that there will be numbers of people who are perfectly honest taxpayers but who do not wish to have their affairs disclosed, by means of a condition of this kind, behind their backs, who will say to their bank, "We will put our shares into the name of the London and Middlesex Bank"—to use a fictitious name. The bank will thereupon appear as the holder of so many hundred thousand shares, say, in the London, Midland and Scottish Railway. The Revenue goes to the London, Midland and Scottish Railway for a copy of the register and finds that the London and Middlesex Bank holds perhaps 5,000,000 shares in its own name. The right hon. Gentleman will at once be checkmated and his Clause will not be worth the paper upon which it is printed.

11.0 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Of course, that is the case. This Clause gives the Chancellor and the revenue authorities more power than they have at present. It extends with regard to debentures and debenture stock and statutory companies the power that already exists with regard to ordinary companies, but does not exist with regard to statutory companies and debenture stocks. I quite agree that the Clause does not go the whole way. It only justifies the register being produced in regard to shares issued by the particular company.

Mr. SAMUEL: And therefore not those held in trust by the bank. [Interruption.] But it is our privilege to scrutinise legislation in order that it shall contain no flaws. The share-register of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway will contain the name of the London and Middlesex Bank holding 50,000 or 500,000 shares which are held in trust for the customers of the bank.
Unless the hon. and learned Attorney-General tells me here and now that he is not going to compel the London and Middlesex Bank to disclose to the revenue for whom these shares are being held in a lump sum on the register, then I say this Clause is a trap and not worth the paper it is written on; it is merely the sly prelude of later inquisitional methods.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: May I also point out with regard to what the hon. and learned Attorney-General has said that it does not meet the chief objection that has been urged. He has referred to these people who, through carelessness or otherwise, do not return the whole list of their securities. Everyone will understand the desire of the Inland Revenue authorities to be able to find out what amount of Income Tax is due from people, and will agree that proper and reasonable facilities ought to be enjoyed by the Inland Revenue authorities for that purpose. The Inland Revenue authorities have got, first of all, the list furnished by the Income Taxpayers themselves, and then the register or ordinary shareholders and preference shareholders which they can consult through their files at Somerset House in order to check—not a complete check, but a very useful one—the returns given for Income Tax purposes. The trouble is that where these powers are incomplete is that they have not the same facilities in the case of debenture holders and with regard to statutory companies. There might be a good and a legitimate case to give the Inland Revenue authorities powers with regard to debentures and statutory companies analogous to what they already possess in regard to other shares. But what is really asked are powers of a different kind, both in regard to debentures and statutory companies and also in regard to existing shareholders. At present, they can go to Somerset House and get a complete list of shareholders, but, if I am right, they cannot demand a specified class of entries as defined by the last Sub-section with regard to existing preference and ordinary shares. They are asking for power to ask for a specified class of entry to be got out from a very long list of shareholders, whether the ordinary shares or debentures. It is a new thing and may be very burden-
some. We are all apt to grumble at the Inland Revenue authorities, but they have their difficulties and on the whole are reasonable people. No one wants to increase their difficulties. But when all is said and done they are only mortal, and if the onus of getting their information is placed upon someone else the temptation to get their information at a cheap rate is very great indeed. In addition, if they make a perfectly natural and human mistake they are not liable to a fine of £50 a day. If it is less trouble to a company to furnish a list as a whole instead of making a copy of a certain class of entry, then let the company have the choice. The Inland Revenue should not have the power to demand it. We object to this compulsory power, which is quite a new demand on the part of the Commissioners.

Mr. BIRKETT: The learned Attorney-General dealt with this matter in a very attractive way but left the objections which have been raised quite unanswered and because he dealt with it in a very attractive manner it is important that the Committee should realise the great advance in the powers of the Revenue authorities which this rather innocent looking provision involves. The Attorney-General treated this matter as though it was a slight and necessary extension of the powers which the Commissioners ought to possess. That is altogether misleading. The Special Commissioners in respect of this matter have no powers at all beyond an ordinary member of the public, and when the Attorney General says that there are just a few gaps which it is highly necessary to close and that this is but a small extension of the powers which they now possess, that is not strictly accurate. Under cover of a rather attractive manner of presenting the case the Attorney-General is disguising the fact that this is quite a revolutionary proposal which is being introduced. The record is at Somerset House and may be inspected, and the powers which are given the Special Commissioners by the Finance Act of 1922 may be properly used in that regard But what is now being asked for is that instead of that merely accidental matter there should be delivered into the hands of the Revenue authorities so far-reaching a power as the power enshrined here. It is by no means a slight extension of
existing powers, but is entirely revolutionary.
The learned Attorney-General quoted the Companies Act of 1929, Section 3, Sub-sections (1) to (5). What analogy that bears to this power I cannot see. Sub-section (2) of Section 73 says:
Every registered holder of debentures and every holder of shares in a company may require a copy of the register of the holders of debentures of the company, or any part thereof, on payment of sixpence of every hundred words required to be copied.
How that can be brought to support the claim that the Special Commissioners shall have power to go to any particular company and say, "We desire a specified class of entries to be given by you, I cannot conceive. It has not the slightest relevance to it. Therefore, the position remains in this way so far as that is concerned: most serious objections have been raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) and by other hon. Members to what is, after all, a revolutionary Clause, an inquisitorial Clause and a Clause which this Committee ought by no means to accept. The defence put forward by the Attorney-General, attractive as it may be in its form, suggesting that this is merely a slight extension, has no real bearing on the facts.
My second point is this: Anybody who resists a Clause of this nature would in certain quarters be open to the criticism that he is protecting the tax evader. I am certain that in every quarter of the House there is not the smallest desire to assist anyone in any way to evade a just and proper duty. But what it is important the Committee should realise—and I think they do realise after this debate—is that you must not, in order to hit the tax evader, hit, and hit very hardly, a large number of innocent citizens and innocent taxpayers, and that by attempting to deal with one evil you may possibly do very much greater injury. The whole point of the matter is this: This Clause is a Clause which seeks to give to the Special Commissioners power, the like of which they have never had. It is not enough to say that they have certain powers now under the Finance Act and other Statutes, and that this is a small extension. In reality it is one of the most far-reaching proposals
which this Committee has ever had to consider with regard to the power of the Commissioners.
With regard to the construction of the Clause, I am sorry to differ from the Attorney-General, but I cannot, with very great respect to him, agree that the legal interpretation of the Clause which he has given is really quite sound. It is very difficult indeed to say exactly what the words mean. Yet it is very important that we should seek to realise what is the true meaning of the words before we part with them. The governing words are the words in Sub-section (5), and I ask what earthly meaning they can have other than put upon them by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North-East Bethnal Green? The words are:
'Entry' means, in relation to any register, so much thereof as relates to the securities held by any one person.
What in the world is the point of those words unless they do really refer to "one person"? That is to say, what the Clause seeks to do is to give some power to the Special Commissioners to obtain entries relating to one individual—leaving aside the nature of the entries for the moment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, no doubt, will differ from me, but what I am seeking to show is that the insertion of a, precise definition in Sub-section (5) of "entry," as the part of the register relating to the securities "held by any one person," is the governing fact. As my hon. and gallant Friend says that it gives power to go to a company and ask about the entry of any one person and to my mind that governs the whole of the rest of the words. If we go back to Sub-section (1) we find the words "a copy of the whole of any register." That is quite plain, and the only other matter there mentioned is "or any specified class of entries in any register." It is quite clear that there will be power to say either, "Let us have the whole of the register" or "Let us have a specified class of entries in the register," and the word "entries," although here it is in the plural, means
so much thereof as relates to the securities held by any one person.
The fact that it is in the plural makes no difference at all.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: A "class" consists of a number of per-
sons. There must be more than person to form a "class."

Mr. BIRKETT: Of course. Then you do not need these words at all. If that is the right interpretation—and it is very interesting to know what is passing in other people's minds about it—it would be quite enough to say, "any specified class of securities" and stop there. But if those other words are put in, and if a special definition of "entry" is given, then at any rate, putting it on the lowest possible ground, my hon. and gallant Friend is entitled to say that in the minds of 99 persons out of 100 the Clause bears the meaning which he gave to it. It is very important indeed that there should be no ambiguity about the matter, and I submit that the interpretation is governed at all stages by these words "securities held by any one person." The points made by my hon. and gallant Friend as to the dangers of a Clause like this cannot be over-emphasised. It is a very serious Clause and I hope that the Committee will reject it.

Major LLEWELLIN: It seems to me that nobody on the Committee would object if there were a Clause in the Bill, giving the Special Commissioners the same powers with regard to debenture stock and statutory companies, as they already have of inspection. What is objected to, first of all, is putting upon public companies the necessity of doing something which the tax collecting authority ought to do, and secondly, of doing that same thing with regard to a particular class of entries, which must mean a great deal more highly skilled work than merely copying down the whole of anything in a register. I think the learned Attorney-General was wrong in his interpretation of the effect of this Clause when he said that what we wanted was to demand a class of larger holdings. I do not see why that should be so at all, because it seems to me to affect a man's Super-tax return even if he has quite a small holding in a company. A small holding of £500 may just top a certain limit of Super-tax. As the hon. and learned Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Birkett) pointed out in regard to the word "entry," if one remembers the provisions of the Interpretation Act, 1889, the singular word includes the plural,
and where we read the word "entry" we have to read the word "entries." We are here giving the Commissioners power to demand a specified class of entries; that is, a specified class of "securities held by any one person." That is all the power that is being given, because the word "entry" is quite clearly defined in the Clause, and that, I submit, must be the reading that the Courts would bold of this Clause. In this case it would be far better, because of the discrimination against individual persons, if this Clause could be withdrawn, and if we could give the Special Commissioners power to go and search in this respect as in any other, without telling anybody for whose name they might be looking. It is a most dangerous principle to be introduced that a demand may be made with respect to one particular person by the Inland Revenue Department. Those of us who have envelopes sent us by the Income Tax authorities know that they are all most carefully and properly marked "Private and confidential," and it is that idea of getting the taxpayer acting with the Commissioners and not having his affairs broadcast at large that is helping the Inland Revenue authorities. If you get this principle by which they may go behind a man's back and publish to the world possibly false information against him, you are introducing a new factor. Therefore, I hope these words will be cut out.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Surely the learned Attorney-General is not going to leave matters in the position in which they stood when the hon. and learned Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Birkett) sat down. I have rarely heard a speech more precisely directed to the object under debate, more harmoniously attuned to the character of Committee discussion, than the excellent statement which he has made. It seemed to me that there could hardly be a more damaging speech from the point of view of the Attorney-General himself. Not only were his facts traversed, not only was his legal authority impugned, and even controverted, but these sharp arrows were planted in his person by his distinguished legal successor in his old primacy on the Liberal benches. I congratulate the Liberal party on having so rapidly filled the gap. I do not often quote Latin to the Committee, but I will say on this occasion:
Uno avulso, non deficit alter.
On the removal of one, another is not wanting. Someone has taken the hon. and learned Gentleman's place who, although not possessing the advantages of official information, has been able to answer him in fact and law and leave him sprawling, a pitiable object. Is he going to sit there silent? You cannot carry on very long in the House of Commons by failing to answer important, serious and difficult questions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer for two hours to-day refused to answer a question which nothing in the public interest withheld him from answering, the answer to which he knew perfectly well. He refused to answer, but sat there stone-walling the discussion.
In the same way the Attorney-General, bankrupt in argument, scores off, if I may use a fairly popular expression, in a way which we rarely see one Member deal with another in these debates, and he thinks that he is going to get out of it by sitting there smiling. I am glad to see him smile. I have several times been minded to say to those who take part in these Budget debates, "Cheer up!" and it would be a great thing if he smiled and took a buoyant and happy view of life. In spite of all the awful things he may have done, there is no need to go about as if he had seen Banquo's ghost. But this is not a laughing matter; this is not a moment to smile. Having been selected by the Socialist party to give them the strong legal and intellectual guidance which they so particularly require, the hon. and learned Gentleman makes an exhibition of himself and is put on the broad of his back by the hon. and learned Gentleman below the Gangway, and sits still, without making the slightest attempt at a Parliamentary answer. The only contribution of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a capacious yawn.
There is another serious aspect to this Clause. It is typical of half-a-dozen that are put into this Bill. The Chancellor is coming forward to demand £50,000,000 or £60,000,000, it may be, of additional revenue from a small class of the taxpayers, a class which he has deliberately narrowed to the smallest possible capacity. The British direct taxpayers are without their equal in the world. No country produces revenue as we have done. Now, added to this very heavy
burden, which the right hon. Gentleman argues the necessities of the case demand, are a whole series of petty, vexatious inquisitorial points designed, in my judgment, not to add to the revenue, but to gratify the feelings of personal irritation and spite which the Chancellor has against this class. In the end this may be a very dangerous policy. An enormous revenue is raised by the direct taxpayer. Any one who knows the workings of the Inland Revenue knows perfectly well that the success of any Budget we have seen in recent times or that we may see in the immediate future depends for its yield of revenue on the good will and the loyal co-operation of the mass of the taxpayers. You may devise this dodge and that inquisition; you may invent this new process and stiffen up that particular guard; but if in the process of doing that you have rendered the heavy new burdens odious to the great mass of those taxpayers, believe me for every pound that you save you will lose ten.

Mr. E. BROWN: The right hon. Gentleman said the Attorney-General had left a gap on these benches which has been admirably filled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Birkett), but he himself left a gap on these benches, and I am not going to say that gap can be filled. The right hon. Gentleman has been described as an unsinkable politician; he always manages to fill his own gaps, wherever they are. Nobody can take his place. But I rise not for the purpose of replying to that point, but in order to bring the debate back to the point of substance made by the hon. and gallant Member for North East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan). We ought to have a reply from the Government on that point. The right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) really is unsinkable. He mentioned the sum of £60,000,000. I wonder he dare ever let that figure cross his lips. I recall a back bench member rising at 2 o'clock one morning in the session of 1927 to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was taking £60,000,000 from the taxpayers. He and the learned Attorney General of that day denied the interpretation put upon the proceeding by the back bench member, but it was found that the ex-
perts on the Treasury bench were wrong and that the layman was right.
We are entitled to know whether the Government are doing in this Clause what they say they are doing. As a layman I have been made profoundly uneasy by the course of this discussion. Further, we are entitled to ask whether the powers which the Government are asking for are excessive powers. As I read Clause 18 I think the Attorney-General has fallen into a false emphasis. Compare Sub-section (1) with Sub-section (5). The real antithesis is not between the whole of the register and a class of securities, but between the whole of the register and a class of persons, a single class.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No.

Mr. BROWN: The Attorney-General says "No." Perhaps he will tell us why. I hope he will answer a simple layman's question in a simple manner and say whether the antithesis is not between the whole of the register and one person. Why do the drafting authorities want Sub-section (5)? If that Sub-section has no reference to one person why do they give an interpretation of the word "entry" construed in terms of securities and not in terms of persons? This is a very important point which has not been met by the Attorney-General. We have to choose between the opinion of three eminent K.C.'s who hold varying opinions, and there seems to me to be a far larger measure of agreement between the honourable and learned Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson) and the hon. and learned Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Birkett) than between the two eminent authorities who have been named, and the Attorney-General, on the point that Sub-section (5) must have some relation to persons rather than to securities. Surely if the Clause really gives the Government power to do what is claimed by the Attorney-General, that is, to deal with a certain class of securities, it ought to say so without any regard whatever to persons.
Let us consider for a moment what is intended if the interpretation really means one person. We have been told that the register contains the names of 280,000 persons. Supposing you have for every person on the register an entry of 20 words, you have 5,600,000 words, and
if the register has 200 to a page it will be 28,000 pages in length. Consider the amount of research involved for one person. If that be so, then I am bound to agree with the hon. and gallant Member for North East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) that this is not the kind of power which Parliament should sanction in order to deal with tax evasion, and if the Government really require more power to deal with tax evasion they should ask for it in a direct manner. If, on the other hand, the Attorney General's construction is accurate, I think we are entitled to ask for a simple and straightforward answer as to why the Government construe the word "entry" as applying to one person. If we get an answer to that question then we shall be in a better position to make up our minds. Personally, I feel that these words are very dangerous.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) that I have got a smiling countenance to-day, but as I listened to the right hon. Gentleman's persiflage I could not help smiling. I will not repeat the right hon. Gentleman's Latin quotations, but when I was listening to them I was reminded of the old Latin phrase Timeo Danaos. I find myself in a certain amount of agreement on this point with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson). It is not very difficult to understand the meaning of the words
of the whole of, or any specified class of entries.
The specified class must consist of a number of units which have to be paid for at the rate of 5s. in respect of each 100 entries. Take, for example, Sub-section (5) which defines what "security" means:
In this section the expression 'security' includes shares, stork, debentures and debenture stock.
To make the point clear the following words are added:
and the expression 'entry' means, in relation to any register so much thereof as relates to the securities held by any one person.
You ask for a specified class if you ask for the name of some particular person.

Mr. LEIF JONES: The Attorney-General in one part of his speech substi-
tuted, for the word "entries" in Sub-section (1), the expression "a specified class of units," "units" being the plural of "unit." So far, it is easy to understand, but I want to ask the Attorney-General what is the plural of the word "entry" lower down. There is a definition of "entry," but not of "entries." Let us try to substitute for the word "entries" in Sub-section (1) the definition given lower down. Sub-section (5) reads:
so much thereof as relates to the securities held by any one person.
What is the plural of that? Does it mean so much as relates to the securities held by any two persons? I really do not know what is meant now by the expression. I suggest that it is entirely ungrammatical, and will require re-wording by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General is not usually lacking in clarity, but I do not know yet what this means or how it is going to work.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The word "class" necessarily imports the plural. You cannot speak of a class of one unit; you get the idea of plurality from the word "class." I agree that whether you speak of "entry" or "entries" is a matter of no importance. It has been said, and rightly, that the one would in-chide the other. But it is manifest from the words "class of entries" that you must be dealing with something which is not a mere unit, but a plural.

Mr. JONES: Should not the word "entry" be substituted for "entries' in Sub-section (1)? I really do not know now.

Mr. ALBERY: There are three things that appear to be quite clear. The first is that no Member of the Committee wishes in any way to hinder the very legitimate object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in preventing tax evasion. The second is that there appears to be fairly unanimous agreement that the Clause is inquisitorial and in some directions almost revolutionary. The third is that there is distinct disagreement amongst those to whom the Committee naturally look for legal guidance in the very difficult phraseology and the Clause. I do not think, after this long Debate, there are many laymen who can honestly say they can make up their
minds as to who is right, the Attorney-General or the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Birkett). Furthermore a Clause of this kind should in no case be introduced unless there is very strong justification for it. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is really not looking for his tax evasion in the wrong place. I can hardly conceive that to any person in his senses who deliberately wanted to evade taxation would do it by means of shares or debentures registered in his name—evidence against him, I suppose, for all time, at any time liable to discovery. There is no need, nor is it reasonable to mention the many other methods by which shareholders could own other kinds of shares where that kind of evidence would not be available. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not postpone the Clause and give it further consideration? He cannot fairly ask the Committee to come to a decision on it this evening.

Dr. BURGIN: I, like others on this side, am seriously troubled to find a meaning for the words "specified class of entry." I have listened with the greatest attention to the explanations that the Attorney-General has given, and I have followed them as far as I can, but I still cannot find a meaning. An entry is something that relates to an individual. Entries, presumably, would mean something that related to more than one individual. The mere fact that there is a difference of opinion as to the meaning of the plural of a singular which is defined shows that we are in some difficulty. Let me see if I can really follow it. The special commissioners are to have power to ask for a copy of the whole of the register. The Attorney-General says there is not the slightest difficulty when that happens. If the special commissioners ask for the copy of an entry, there is clearly no difficulty, because the word "entry" is defined. An entry is everything relating to a given person, but what is a class of entry? You cannot have a class of one person. The word "class" could be substituted by the word "number." I want to ask the Attorney-General whether line 15 would, in his view, be exactly the same if the word
"number" were inserted instead of the word "class"?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No.

Dr. BURGIN: So it is not the whole register, or any specified number of entries in the register. That is not the point. Therefore it means something more than mere plurality. What does it mean? If the special commissioners are to ask for the entries relating to A, B and C, that would be entries relating to specified persons. Is that what it means? Unlike the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) I have had three shots with the arrow but have not hit the mark. It does not relate, then, to several entries relating to the same person, it does not relate to entries relating to different persons, and it does not relate to a separate number of entries. I confess that I should not like to leave the Clause there not knowing in the least what it does mean.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It applies to entries over £500.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: We are really passing from one difficulty to another. I have listened to the very interesting speech just made, and I understood the Attorney-General to say that the Revenue authorities could ask for the whole register or specify a class of entries, which means the kind of people who own, say, 500 but not exceeding 1,000 shares. That is an illustration. Each one owns different kinds of shares. Apparently the authorities have got those two alternatives only—the register or the class. Supposing the authorities have some doubt in regard to a particular individual, are they debarred from asking for a list of the holdings of that individual? Is that so? Is it confined either to the whole register or to a class, or have they the power to ask for the holding of a particular individual?

Mr. STUART BEVAN: I am loth to make confusion worse confounded and I only propose to deal with the construction of the Clause. With the arguments which have been advanced from this side of the House against the policy of the Clause I am in complete agreement. I do not desire to add one word to the very cogent arguments adduced against it. Let us look for a moment at the construction of the Clause. As I read it, it fails
of its purpose because while it gives powers to the Commissioners to demand a copy of the whole register or of a specified class of entries, they are to have no power to demand an entry relating to one particular holding which may be suspect. It is a cumbrous and expensive way, if this inquisition is to be chosen at all, to make an inquiry and gather information as to the holding of an individual taxpayer, that the Commissioners have to elect either to have a complete copy of the whole register or a specified class. That is the first objection. When one takes the wording of the Clause, if a Clause of this kind at all is desirable—which I stoutly contest—then it ought to be a business-like Clause. There is no means by which the holding of a particular shareholder in a company can be ascertained otherwise than by the cumbrous method of obtaining a copy of the whole register or a copy of a specified class of holding. The Attorney-General in an endeavour to throw light upon the Clause, which is as obscure as any Clause can be, referred to Sub-section (5) and he threw a new light—if light it can be called—upon it by stating that an entry in his view means, as the Clause says,
in relation to any register, so much thereof as relates to the securities held by any one person.
He expressed the view that the 5s. per hundred entries was to be 5s. possibly in respect of 400 entries, because "entry" was an omnibus word which involved a search into four different registers of the companies—the share register, the stock register, the debenture register and the debenture stock register, all of which had to be paid for as one. A good many views have been expressed as to the inadequacy of the fee of 5s. per hundred entries.
If it is to be five shillings for every 400 entries, the matter becomes even more burdensome than it appears at first sight, and, it is an intolerable burden to throw upon a limited company to maintain a staff even at such a pitiable remuneration. A large staff is to be employed to be at the call of the Commissioners from time to time, nay, from day to day, to supply such information as the Commissioners want, at the rate of five shillings for every 400 entries. Apart altogether from the policy of the Clause, to which I am entirely antagonistic, as are
many hon. Members on this side of the Committee, I submit that it is an unworkable Clause, and that it does not attain the end desired by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and those who are advising him in this matter. The sooner it is dropped the better.

Mr. HASLAM: Although the speech of my hon. and learned friend the Member for Holborn (Mr. S. Bevan) was, to some extent, reassuring as to the position, yet there are many of us who would like to know whether this Clause gives to the Revenue authorities the power to make inquisitorial inquiries behind the back of an individual taxpayer without his knowing anything about the matter? That is a question in regard to which we have not had a clear answer from the learned Attorney-General. The hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan), earlier in the evening, gave a distinct and vivid picture of what might happen to an individual if he were pursued in this way. It is worthy of note that the learned Attorney-General, when he came to reply, did not deny that that kind of thing might happen. He merely said that he hoped that the Revenue authorities would not be so foolish as to conduct such an inquiry. That is no reply. It is no reason why the Committee should give to the Revenue authorities such large and revolutionary powers. We want a further assurance from the Government that they do not intend to use, or do not require such powers, and that they will, if necessary, insert words which will protect the individual from being pursued in this way. There is no need to pursue the individual in the way suggested. Surely, it is a most un-English way of doing things. If the Revenue authorities suspect that an individual has made a false return they can tackle him directly. They can write to him and ask him for evidence relating to his return. I believe that in certain cases they call upon the individual to produce his share certificates as evidence. Therefore, it is not very difficult for them to tackle the individual and make him responsible. To proceed by making an inquiry behind his back is an action which the Committee, I am sure, does not desire to see taken. Cannot the learned Attorney-General undertake to put a further provision in the Clause, or to agree to the Amendment
of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne), and leave out the reference to these specified portions of the register altogether?

12 m.

Mr. B. GARDNER: It is not often that I trouble the Committee, but I wish to remind hon. members opposite that this Clause, or the intention of the Clause, is only a matter of common justice. Every wage earner who earns over £3 a week has to suffer these inquisitions into his means. The authorities do not take his word. Employers have to make returns; they are under penalties, if they fail to make returns, the Income Tax authorities and I welcome this Clause because it is doing justice to all classes.

Mr. SMITHERS: I wish to raise what I think is an important point arising out of the remark by the learned Attorney-General earlier in the evening on this question. We have followed the Chancellor in putting in the words "body corporate," which term, I presume, includes a bank. Now the learned Attorney-General said that the Special Commissioners, following the words of the Clause, may "serve a notice" regarding certain securities. I want to call attention to the last words of that Subsection "issued by them." He said that that meant the registered company, or the parent company, who issued the securities. About two hours ago I put forward a typical case—and there are many others—of the Westminster Bank, one of the big five banks of London, which takes over a large block of Canadian Pacific Railway shares, and issues against them Westminster Bank certificates. [Interruption.] I should be grateful to have the attention of the learned Attorney-General, because I am putting this point to him and I am venturing to differ from him. The practice of the Westminster Bank has for many years been to take into their treasury a block of Canadian Pacific shares and to issue against them Westminster Bank certificates. They do so for the convenience of their clients and it happens to be an acceptable arrangement to a good many foreign holders. The Westminster Bank is a "body corporate," and these securities are "issued by them," and bear on their face the name of the people to whom they
are issued. By signing an open form of transfer at the bank they can be turned into various securities. I hope that the Attorney-General will tell me whether the Special Commissioners may serve a notice on the Westminster Bank asking them to give a return of the Canadian Pacific shares—taking this as a typical case—held by them.
In the case of the Inland Revenue authorities requiring particulars of the holdings of 10,000 shares it may be that one shareholder has bought 200 shares at one time and 800 at another. These two entries may be several thousands apart on the register, and the search will entail a great deal of time and labour. It is most unfair to make the secretary of a company liable to these heavy penalties in the case of a mistake. If the Special Commissioners require particulars of the holding of 10,000 shares, will the copy supplied by the secretary or representative of the company be taken as proof that the individual does in fact hold those shares? The question of nominee shares arises. He may hold these shares in his own name but on behalf of eight or ten other people. Will the entry made by the secretary of a company be taken as proof of the holding of these shares or will the individual have an opportunity of proving that none of them belong to him. In my opinion this Clause is useless and unworkable. It may easily arise that a man has sold his shares cum dividend and that he has sold them before the books are closed. The Income Tax authorities come down upon him for making a false return. What is the position of that man?
How do the Income Tax authorities hope to trace that? I hope that these questions will be answered. The Clause as it stands will only create further difficulties in the carrying on of business. These continual pin-pricks make it more difficult to carry on business and to bring business to London. It is this kind of venomous legislation which is being put upon the backs of what on the whole are the most loyal payers of Income Tax and Super-tax that the world has ever seen. It will force people to take every possible means of getting their shares registered, quite legally, in a way that will enable them to avoid this kind of inquisition. Knowing the character of the
British people and the way in which they meet their liabilities, I am sure Chat the cost of working this Clause will be greater than the amount of any evasion of the Tax.

Mr. SNOWDEN rose in his place and claimed to move "That the Question be now put"; but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: I am sorry to detain the Committee, but there are one or two features of the Clause which are still not clear. The Clause is one which will vitally affect the interests of every company in the country, and we ought not to vote on it until we understand quite clearly what we are doing. In the absence of any definition the words "class of entries" to the ordinary layman will mean any particular part of the Register, that is the part of the Register referring to debenture holders or preference shareholders or ordinary shareholders or deferred shareholders. Later in the Clause there is a definition.
'Entry' means so much of any register as relates to the securities held by any one person.
That definition makes it of vital importance that the word "specified" should be quite clearly defined. Otherwise the Special Commissioners will receive powers which will enable them to do the most extraordinary things. In the absence of some definition or limitation of "specified" it seems to me that the Special Commissioners might require a company to furnish particulars of the holdings of, say, the red-headed shareholders, or the bald-headed shareholders, or those shareholders against whom the Commissioners in the past have proceeded in Income Tax cases. The word "specified" might mean anything. I agree with what has been said as to the injustice of compelling companies to make a copy of the registers at the rate of only five shillings for every 400 entries. The Clause might compel a company to make an exhaustive search of registers and to carry out the work of many weeks, and in the end the company's remuneration might amount to a small fraction over a halfpenny. Unless we know what the word "specified" means, it is impossible to pass the Clause in its present form.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 215; Noes, 160.

Division No. 355.]
AYES.
[12.15 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hopkin, Daniel
Potts, John S.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Horrabin, J. F.
Price, M. P.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Alpass, J. H.
Isaacs, George
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Ammon, Charles George
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Raynes, W. R.


Arnott, John
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Richards, R.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Johnston, Thomas
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barnes, Alfred John
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Ritson, J.


Bellamy, Albert
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Benson, G.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Romeril, H. G.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Kelly, W. T.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Kennedy, Thomas
Rowson, Guy


Bowen, J. W.
Kinley, J.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Broad, Francis Alfred
Kirkwood, D.
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Sanders, W. S.


Bromfield, William
Lathan, G.
Sandham, E.


Brothers, M.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Sawyer, G. F.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Scurr, John


Buchanan, G.
Lawrence, Susan
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Burgess, F. G.
Lawson, John James
Shield, George William


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Leach, W.
Shillaker, J. F.


Charleton, H. C.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Simmons, C. J.


Church, Major A. G.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Sinkinson, George


Clarke, J. S.
Lees, J.
Sitch, Charles H.


Cluse, W. S.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lindley, Fred W.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Compton, Joseph
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Cove, William G.
Logan, David Gilbert
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Daggar, George
Longbottom, A. W.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Dallas, George
Longden, F.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Dalton, Hugh
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lunn, William
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Dickson, T.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Sorensen, R.


Dukes, C.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Stamford, Thomas W.


Ede, James Chuter
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Stephen, Campbell


Edmunds, J. E.
McElwee, A.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
McEntee, V. L.
Strauss, G. R.


Egan, W. H.
MacLaren, Andrew
Sutton, J. E.


Freeman, Peter
McShane, John James
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Mansfield, W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Gibbins, Joseph
Markham, S. F.
Thurtle, Ernest


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Marley, J.
Tinker, John Joseph


Gill, T. H.
Marshall, F.
Tout, W. J.


Gillett, George M.
Mathers, George
Townend, A. E.


Gossling, A. G.
Messer, Fred
Vaughan, D. J.


Gould, F.
Middleton, G.
Viant, S. P.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mills, J. E.
Walker, J.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Milner, Major J.
Wallace, H. W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Montague, Frederick
Watkins, F. C.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Groves, Thomas E.
Morley, Ralph
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Wellock, Wilfred


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mort, D. L.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Moses, J. J. H.
Westwood, Joseph


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Hardie, George D.
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Harris, Percy A.
Muff, G.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Muggeridge, H. T.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Haycock, A. W.
Murnin, Hugh
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hayday, Arthur
Naylor, T. E.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hayes, John Henry
Noel Baker, P. J.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Oldfield, J. R.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Palin, John Henry
Wise, E. F.


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Paling, Wilfrid
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Herriotts, J.
Palmer, E. T.



Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Hollins, A.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Charles Edwards.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Aske, Sir Robert
Atkinson, C.


Albery, Irving James
Atholl, Duchess of
Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Beaumont, M. W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Glassey, A. E.
Peake, Captain Osbert


Bird, Ernest Roy
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Penny, Sir George


Birkett, W. Norman
Granville, E.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Blindell, James
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Pybus, Percy John


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gray, Milner
Ramshotham, H.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Rathbone, Eleanor


Bracken, B.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Remer, John R.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)


Briscoe, Richard George
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Rothschild, J. de


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hartington, Marquess of
Salmon, Major I.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Haslam, Henry C.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Colfox, Major William Philip
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Savery, S. S.


Colman, N. C. D.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Colville, Major D. J.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cowan, D. M.
Iveagh, Countess of
Smithers, Waldron


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Jones, Sir G. W. K. (Stoke New'gton)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Train, J.


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lung, Major Eric
Turton, Robert Hugh


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lymington, Viscount
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Edge, Sir William
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Wells, Sydney R.


Elmley, Viscount
Meller, R. J.
White, H. G.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Womersley, W. J.


Ferguson, Sir John
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Fielden, E. B.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Muirhead, A. J.



Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nathan, Major H. L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Captain Margesson and Captain


Ganzoni, Sir John
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Wallace.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Question put accordingly, "That the word 'certified' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 212; Noes, 158.

Division No. 356.]
AYES.
[12.25 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Clarke, J. S.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin, Cent.)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Cluse, W. S.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Alpass, J. H.
Compton, Joseph
Groves, Thomas E.


Ammon, Charles George
Cove, William G.
Grundy, Thomas W.


Arnott, John
Daggar, George
Hall, F. (York. W. R., Normanton)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Dallas, George
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Barnes, Alfred John
Dalton, Hugh
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)


Bellamy, Albert
Dickson, T.
Hardie, George D.


Benson, G.
Dukes, C.
Harris, Percy A.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Ede, James Chuter
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Edmunds, J. E.
Haycock, A. W.


Bowen, J. W.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Hayday, Arthur


Broad, Francis Alfred
Egan, W. H.
Hayes, John Henry


Brockway, A. Fenner
Freeman, Peter
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Bromfield, William
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)


Brothers, M.
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Gibbins, Joseph
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)


Buchanan, G.
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Herriotts, J.


Burgess, F. G.
Gill, T. H.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Gillett, George M.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Gossling, A. G.
Hollins, A.


Charleton, H. C.
Gould, F.
Hopkin, Daniel


Church, Major A. G.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Horrabin, J. F.


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Mills, J. E.
Sitch, Charles H.


Isaacs, George
Milner, Major J.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Montague, Frederick
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Johnston, Thomas
Morley, Ralph
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Mort, D. L.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Moses, J. J. H.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Kelly, W. T.
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Sorensen, R.


Kennedy, Thomas
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Stamford, Thomas W.


Kinley, J.
Muff, G.
Stephen, Campbell


Kirkwood, D.
Muggeridge, H. T.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Murnin, Hugh
Strauss, G. R.


Lathan, G.
Naylor, T. E.
Sutton, J. E.


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Law, A. (Rosendale)
Oldfield, J. R.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Lawrence, Susan
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Lawson, John James
Palin, John Henry
Thurtle, Ernest


Lawther, W. (Barnard Cattle)
Paling, Wilfrid
Tinker, John Joseph


Leach, W.
Palmer, E. T.
Tout, W. J.


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Townend, A. E.


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Vaughan, D. J.


Lees, J.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Walker, J.


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Potts, John S.
Wallace, H. W.


Lindley, Fred W.
Price, M. P.
Watkins, F. C.


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Quibell, D. J. K.
Watson, W. M. (Duntermilne)


Logan, David Gilbert
Raynes, W. R.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Longbottom, A. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wellock, Wilfred


Longden, F.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Ritson, J.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Lunn, William
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Westwood, Joseph


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Romeril, H. G.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Rowson, Guy
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


McElwee, A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


McEntee, V. L.
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


MacLaren, Andrew
Sanders, W. S.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


McShane, John James
Sandham, E.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sawyer, G. F.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Mansfield, W.
Scurr, John
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Markham, S. F.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wise, E. F.


Marley, J.
Shield, George William
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Marshall, F.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond



Mathers, George
Shillaker, J. F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.-


Messer, Fred
Simmons, C. J.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Middleton, G.
Sinkinson, George
Charles Edwards.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Albery, Irving James
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Aske, Sir Robert
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Atholl, Duchess of
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Atkinson, C.
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Hartington, Marquess of


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Haslam, Henry C.


Beaumont, M. W.
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Edge, Sir William
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)


Birkett, W. Norman
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie.


Blindell, James
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Elmley, Viscount
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Bracken, B.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Iveagh, Countess of


Brass, Captain Sir William
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)


Briscoe, Richard George
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Ferguson, Sir John
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Fielden, E. B.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Fison, F. G. Clavering
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lane Fox, Cot. Rt. Hon. George R.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Long, Major Eric


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Glassey, A. E.
Lymington, Viscount


Colfox, Major William Philip
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Colman, N. C. D.
Granville, E.
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.


Colville, Major D. J.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Gray, Milner
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Marjoribanks, E. C.


Cowan, D. M.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Meller, R. J.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)




Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Train, J.


Muirhead, A. J.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Nathan, Major H. L.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Salmon, Major I.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


O'Connor, T. J.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Warrender, Sir Victor


Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Savery, S. S.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Wayland, Sir William A.


Peake, Capt. Osbert
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Wells, Sydney R.


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
White, H. G.


Pybus, Percy John
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Smithers, Waldron
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Ramsbotham, H.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Womersley, W. J.


Rathbone, Eleanor
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Remer, John R.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)



Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Captain Sir George Bowyer and Sir


Rothschild, J. de
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
George Penny.

The CHAIRMAN: Sir Dennis Herbert——

Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I rise for the purpose of asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give us some inkling at this stage of the intentions which the Government have formed with regard to the further course of our business to-night and of their submissions in the matter. [An HON. MEMBER: "Speak up!"] I conclude with the Motion to Report Progress and ask leave to sit again, and I repeat that for the benefit of my hon. Friend who has just returned from the cricket match. We have not found it easy to make progress to-day because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not made many helpful answers to the arguments that have been used. He prefers to sit there stonewalling the Debate and rising in his place at intervals to move the Closure. Sometimes he has risen when the Chairman has been unable to accept the Closure, thus showing that he has been unable to judge the sense of the Committee with the same instinct and propriety as the Chairman. What does he intend to do? How far does he wish to go? We have disposed of one Clause and made good progress with a second. They will not add to the revenue nor help to solve the financial problems of the country. All they will do is to work out certain special ideas that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his friends have on these subjects. I will give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity at this stage, before I comment further on the situation, to tell us what his intentions are.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: We have been in Committee now for nine hours, and we have got one Clause. I can answer the right hon. Gentleman in one sentence. This sitting will continue until we have reached Clause 27.

Mr. CHURCHILL: It always makes the thorny path of public business the easier when we are guided by the right hon. Gentleman. I will counsel him, if he is really going to embark on such a lengthy and laborious procedure, to begin his labours—for he is only at the very beginning of them—in rather a better temper than he has just exhibited. The spectacle of rage and malice which was exhibited to us when he rose just now reminds me of an impression I have sometimes seen when walking through a munitions factory and the great glare of a furnace suddenly comes on one.

Dr. MORGAN: Get on !

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is outside the House.

Mr. CHURCHILL: All I can say is that the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are preposterous He asks us to deal with the immense series of Clauses that lie between us and Clause 27.

Mr. J. WILSON: We have to have them at some time.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: You are getting supporters on this side. Go ahead!

Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot conceive any course less calculated to facilitate progress. Some of these Clauses are of great importance and complexity. Others are not of such importance, but they are none the less irritating and have been added needlessly to encumber
the financial provisions. The whole attitude which the right hon. Gentleman has adopted is one calculated to delay the course of public business. From beginning to end of this Budget he has tried to ride roughshod over the Rouse. How, I should like to know, could any Opposition receive the kind of announcement he has made to us? After all, we have our Parliamentary rights as well as he and his friends. He is a Minister in a minority Government dependent on the precarious political co-operation he receives from that bench. He uses tones of arrogance which I have never heard employed in a Government in a majority. He says we are to deal with all these clauses.
Take Clause 19 (Provisions as to collection of tax where appeal pending against assessment). That Clause is one of these little, petty pinpricks to the taxpayer at the time when the right hon. Gentleman is casting this heavy new burden on him. Take Clause 20 (Amendment of law relating to summary recovery of income tax) and Clause 21 (Limitation on amount of sur-tax payable in respect of total income of individual dying within year of assessment). That Clause is one on which, I dare say, there will not be very much trouble. Clause 22 (Valuation for purposes of Schedules A and B to be made quinquennially in Great Britain.) [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed."] Why should you begin saying "Agreed"? After all, we have been told we are sitting all night. We cannot have at one moment violent threats by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ill-use the House and squeals for mercy from his followers. Clause 23 (Provisions for expediting in England valuations and assessments for years of revaluation). This is a most serious and complicated Clause affecting the valuation and its relations to the Treasury valuation. Clause 24 (Parishes for purposes of assessment in England.) That perhaps is not a very lengthy Clause, but look at Clause 25 (Appointment of general commissioners in Scotland.) That raises the Scotch aspect of our affairs. That, I should have thought in the best of circumstances difficult to dispose of by the Scottish Members, who take their Parliamentary duties most seriously and have never been known in this House
to lack the capacity to state an important case with due prolixity. That is a Clause which might take some considerable time.
Clause 26 (Annual value of property in London for purposes of income tax.) That is a Clause raising questions of difficulty; and finally there is Clause 27 (Provisions with respect to returns, copies of valuation lists and tax assessments in London.) The right hon. Gentleman intends to keep the Committee all through this hot night in order to secure this immense mass of tangled and complicated business. He is trying to carry his Budget not by argument and reason, not by tactful and careful guidance of the Committee, but by sheer brute force. He has his army marshalled behind him. Their bridges and their boats are burned behind them. They cannot escape for some hours. He is using these unfortunates, with their backs to the wall, as it were, to try to press this immense mass of legislation through. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer seriously to consider whether he should proceed in this course of action. After all, there is this present Clause 18, a very important Clause.
Would it not be better to finish that Clause as quickly as possible and then let the House adjourn? What is the reason we are to have this prolonged sitting? A Committee of the House has just reported against these late sittings. Why does the right hon. Gentleman wish to keep us up? We did not put these Clauses down. They are not necessary in any way. They are merely put in in order to make it funny. The right hon. Gentleman proposes that we should sit for all hours of the night on this subject. I am willing to begin this discussion in a most amicable manner, and I have met the right hon. Gentleman in a very fair and friendly manner. If he will wind up his proceedings at Clause 18, which might easily be disposed of in less than an hour or an hour and a half, then we can all return refreshed on Thursday. There is enough material in this great mass of business which he is trying to force through to keep the Committee until three o'clock to-morrow, and in that case another allotted day of Supply is destroyed, because, if the Committee sits until three o'clock, the House can never meet on that day and the Government
will have lost the whole of their allotted Supply day. There is a supreme remedy which is provided for Oppositions who are ill-treated in the matter of legislation. I do not know whether the Liberal party will approve of this method of forcing business through. The Finance Bill is a Measure which, from their point of view, has a singular significance, because it is by means of a Finance Bill that a tariff will be carried. No doubt the Government, by overloading the House with petty matters and pressing the debates into all hours of the night, are trying to make a case for a guillotine on the Budget.

The CHAIRMAN: That is hardly relevant to the point before us at the moment.

Mr. CHURCHILL: With great respect, I thought that an analysis of the motives and the reasons which have actuated the Leader of the House in pressing this business on Parliament were as much within the ambit of your previous tolerance as what I have already said. But I pass from that, simply pointing out that every step which the right hon. Gentleman has taken in the course of the Budget discussions is consistent with a plan leading up to a guillotine closure. We see paragraphs announcing so in his party official organ, indicating that the ordinary procedure of this House may be swept away in order that he and his friends may carry out their healing process.

But the Budget stands by itself, and once a precedent is set up of a guillotine closure, and it is being prepared beforehand by these all-night sittings, then be sure that if the Liberal party were to support such a procedure, they would destroy the main opportunity they would have of preventing the passage of a tariff Bill, which certainly could only be carried under the application of a guillotine closure.

I have pressed the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his decision, but I gather we are to have no further word from him, and that we are to go on until this vast mass of business has been disposed of. I gather that is so. I did not expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer to answer. If he sets us this hard task, if he forces us to proceed to examine all the details of this Bill, we will not shrink from the task. We will meet him in the discussions, and we will only hope that the contributions which will be made to our legislation will be such as to render it at least innocuous, and that the contribution which we make to the education of the right hon. Gentleman will carry his command of patience and of good temper one step further than it has yet done.

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 103; Noes, 219.

Division No. 357.]
AYES.
[12.53 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Albery, Irving James
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)
Long, Major Eric


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Fielden, E. B.
Lymington, Viscount


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Beaumont, M. W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Ganzoni, Sir John
Marjoribanks, E. C.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Bracken, B.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Briscoe, Richard George
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Muirhead, A. J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
O'Connor, T. J.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Penny, Sir George


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hartington, Marquess of
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Colville, Major D. J.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ramsbotham, H.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Haslam, Henry C.
Remer, John R.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Iveagh, Countess of
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut-Colonel E. A.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Salmon, Major I.


Dawson, Sir Philip
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewert


Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Shillaker, J. F.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
Womersley, W. J.


Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement



Smithers, Waldron
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Somerville, D. G. (Willesdon, East)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Captain Wallace and Sir Victor


Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Warrender.


Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Wells, Sydney R.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Noel Baker, P. J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Herriotts, J.
Oldfield, J. R.


Alpass, J. H.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Ammon, Charles George
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Arnott, John
Hollins, A.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Aske, Sir Robert
Hopkin, Daniel
Palin, John Henry


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Paling, Wilfrid


Barnes, Alfred John
Horrabin, J. F.
Palmer, E. T.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Bellamy, Albert
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Benson, G.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Potts, John S.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Price, M. P.


Birkett, W. Norman
Johnston, Thomas
Pybus, Percy John


Blindell, James
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Bowen, J. W.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Broad, Francis Alfred
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Raynes, W. R.


Bromfield, William
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Brothers, M.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Kelly, W. T.
Ritson, J.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kennedy, Thomas
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Buchanan, G.
Kinley, J.
Romeril, H. G.


Burgess, F. G.
Kirkwood, D.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Rothschild, J. de


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Lathan, G.
Rowson, Guy


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Charleton, H. C.
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Clarke, J. S.
Lawrence, Susan
Sanders, W. S.


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, John James
Sawyer, G. F.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Scurr, John


Compton, Joseph
Leach, W.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Cove, William G.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Shield, George William


Daggar, George
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Dallas, George
Lees, J.
Shillaker, J. F.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Simmons, C. J.


Dickson, T.
Lindley, Fred W.
Sinkinson, George


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sitch, Charles H.


Dukes, C.
Logan, David Gilbert
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Ede, James Chuter
Longbottam, A. W.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Edge, Sir William
Longden, F.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Edmunds, J. E.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lunn, William
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Egan, W. H.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Elmley, Viscount
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Freeman, Peter
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sorensen, R.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham. Upton)
McElwee, A.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Gibbins, Joseph
McEntee, V. L.
Stephen, Campbell


Gibson H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)
McShane, John James
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Gill, T. H.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Strauss, G. R.


Glassey, A. E.
Mansfield, W.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Gossling, A. G.
Marley, J.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Gould, F.
Marshall, F.
Thurtle, Ernest


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mathers, George
Tinker, John Joseph


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Messer, Fred
Tout, W. J.


Granville, E.
Middleton, G.
Townend, A. E.


Gray, Milner
Mills, J. E.
Vaughan, D. J.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Milner, Major J.
Wallace, H. W.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Montague, Frederick
Watkins, F. C.


Groves, Thomas E.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Morley, Ralph
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Wellock, Wilfred


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Mort, D. L.
Westwood, Joseph


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Moses, J. J. H.
White, H. G.


Harris, Percy A.
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Haycock, A. W.
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hayday, Arthur
Muff, G.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Hayes, John Henry
Muggeridge, H. T.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Murnin, Hugh
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)




Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Wise, E. F.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Charles Edwards.

Sir D. HERBERT: I beg to move, in page 16, line 13, to leave out the words:
in such manner as may be specified",
and to insert instead thereof the words:
by the signature of a duly authorised agent of that body".
1 a.m.
The Amendment I put on the Paper requires alteration to the form in which I now move it, as a result of one of the Amendments made in the earlier part of the Clause. If on this occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer is also prepared to accept my Amendment, it will not be necessary for me to speak on it. The Clause provides that the copies which are to be furnished at the instance of the Special Commissioners are to be "certified in such manner as may be specified." I suppose that means as specified by the Commissioners. A much more usual and a more convenient course would have been to state the manner in which the copies were to be certified, namely, that they should be certified by the signature of the responsible officer concerned. The Amendment I put down was that they should be certified
by the signature of one of those persons or their duly authorised agent.
These words were put down when we were supposed to be dealing with a body of persons. That body of persons has been altered into a corporate body. I am not one of those who consider it possible by any manner of means that the Special Commissioners are likely to be unreasonable. If they would not act unreasonably, in what other manner, except by the duly authorised agents, will these lists be certified? In what other manner could the Commissioners require them to be certified? I will tell the Financial Secretary one way in which they might be required to be certified if they were peculiarly suspected. They might require them to be notarially certified. That would cost a great deal more than the 5s. a hundred that is the authorised payment under this Clause as it stands and my previous Amendment having been accepted so readily, I think this is also a reasonable one.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I quite appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman has moved this Amendment,
and I quite realise that his only wish is to make the Clause work in the most harmonious way. But in point of fact I think that the words in the Clause as they stand are preferable to the words which the hon. Member has proposed. Even in the modified form in which he has put them forward in the Amendment, I still think that our words are better. The intention of the Clause is that the appropriate officer shall make the certification, and what we think is that the Special Commissioners will be the best judge in each particular case as to who the officer shall be.
There will, of course, be a number of different bodies who will have to make these certificates for corporations, railway companies and companies incorporated under the Companies Act, and in each of these cases somewhat different persons will be the appropriate officers to make the certification. Our opinion is that it would be better to leave it in the hands of the special commissioners to suggest the appropriate officer rather than to attempt to decide in advance, whether in the form of an amendment to the Clause or otherwise.

Sir D. HERBERT: Would the hon. Gentleman accept the words "certified by such officers as might be satisfactory to the Commissioners?"

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I think myself that the words in the Clause are best. We need not imagine that the Special Commissioners will propose some quite unreasonable person. We had better leave it as it is.

Lord E. PERCY: I would ask the hon. Gentleman why he does not say:
certified by such officer as, in the opinion of the Special Commissioners, is the appropriate officer?
The answer of the hon. Gentleman is that we do not expect the Special Commissioners to do anything unreasonable. Then why give them the power? This is the sort of sloppy legislation that is continually drifting, and giving wide powers because we will not give ourselves the trouble of thinking what powers a public official really ought to have. Never in any previous Parliament have we had so many wide and sloppily-
drawn Clauses giving powers to various classes of people. If the government wants to do the perfectly simple and obviously proper thing, why cannot it say exactly what is meant?

The CHAIRMAN: Sir Basil Peto.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I will preface my remarks by thanking you, Mr. Young, for the honour you have conferred upon me. I take it as a high compliment and apologize to the hon. Baronet, the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), that even for one moment I stepped into his shoes. I would like to reinforce the point that has been put by the noble Lord. The answer of the Financial Secretary has nothing whatever to do with the words of this Clause. The words we are proposing to leave out are "in such manner as may be specified," but his answer is about appropriate officers. Well an "appropriate officer" is not a "manner" whatever else he is. Who is going to do the specifying? The Special Commissioners, I understand the Financial Secretary saying they are the best judges, they may be good judges, but I would not go so far as to say that they are necessarily the best, because that would be taking away the competence of Parliament, which is the best judge.
The hon. Gentleman, the Financial Secretary, was not at all responsive. It is our business to try to get words into these Acts of Parliament to signify our intention. If he means that the appropriate officers are to make the certification, why in the world does he not say so? There is nothing in this Sub-section about any officer at all, appropriate or otherwise. It certainly pays "in such manner as may be specified." I think the certification is going to be done by the Special Commissioners "in such manner"; that might mean that they might quite well say it has to be on foolscap paper instead of typewritten or in handwriting instead of copper-plate, the Financial Secretary is only concerned with that very narrow bureaucratic technique of the people in Government offices, of which I have had very considerable experience, who would not look at a file of papers sent to them because the bow tying them up was on the bottom instead of at the side. That is the sort of thing which is meant by "in such
manner". It has nothing to do with people.
Really the Financial Secretary must discriminate between things and persons. He says, "Leave the choice of the appropriate officers to the Special Commissioners," but we do not want to leave it to anyone when we are passing an Act of Parliament. In all the many hours of discussion we have had no one knows in this Committee really what is meant by the Government and lawyers have all given different verdicts, and the laymen have followed not far behind. Let the Financial Secretary be good enough to tell us what is meant by "in like manner." Do not let him talk about officers. I expect his remarks were all out of order on this Amendment, but he has been treated with great latitude by the Chairman. I hope he will explain what it is that the bureaucratic powers who are behind this Clause have in mind.

Major NATHAN: The extraordinary thing is that in this one Clause there should be in three successive lines the word "specified." We are to have copies delivered within a specified time, certified in such manner as may be specified, of the whole of or any specified class of entries. We have already spent three hours discussing that meaning of the word "specified." I challenge my memory as to whether the word "specified" any such context as this has appeared in legislation. Let me pursue the matter a little further, because there is a procedure of certification under the Companies Act, 1929, and I wish to ask the Financial Secretary whether he has in mind the certification under the Companies' Forms Order of 1929 made by the Board of Trade under date 7th October, 1929, in which several methods, alternative methods, in circumstances to which that order was applicable, are laid down for certification, such as the certification of a true copy by a notary public, or the certification of a true copy on oath by an officer having authority to administer an oath? I do not believe for a minute that that is what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. I think the Financial Secretary overlooks the change that has taken place in the form of this Clause since it first came before the
Committee. The Clause now relates only to bodies corporate and the position with regard to all bodies corporate is perfectly well known. They all have their proper officer—their clerk or secretary is the proper person to make a certificate. If the hon. Gentleman will look at Subsection (4), line 22, he will find that it refers to the clerk and secretary of the body in question, or, if there is no clerk or Secretary, the person who performs the duties of clerk or secretary. Why then the use of the words "in such manner as may be specified"?

Sir W. BRASS: It seems to me that there are two points we have to consider. One was made by my hon. and gallant Friend below the Gangway. When I asked the learned Attorney-General what was meant by the words "certified in such manner as may be specified," I did not get any reply. I hope that the Financial Secretary will presently tell us exactly what is meant by these words. Do we understand by them that a special form might be provided by the Commissioners and sent to the Companies in a specially arranged way and filled in by them in a specified manner? The other point is this: I suggest that the words should be left out rather than any words be added. If these words were left out, the Clause would read:—
The Special Commissioners may cause to be served upon any corporate body … requiring them to deliver to the Commissioners within a specified time a copy of the whole of, or any specfied class of entries.

The CHAIRMAN: That cannot be done now. The word "certified" stands part.

Sir W. BRASS: We cannot do that now. We must deal with the Amendment as it stands. That being the case, it turns now on the question of the person who shall do the certifying. I would suggest that the secretary or the clerk who is referred to in Sub-section (4), who is to be responsible and who, if he does not do it in a proper manner, is to be fined £50, should be the person to do this certifying. I cannot see why the Financial Secretary should not accept this very reasonable Amendment. All these various concerns have clerks or secretaries who can perfectly well do the certifying for them. I do
not see any argument in the remarks of the Financial Secretary that the words that have been suggested should not be accepted. He has brought nothing new forward but has merely, in effect, told the Committee that he thinks the words in the Bill are better than those suggested in the Amendment, without giving any reason.

Sir D. HERBERT: When I moved this Amendment I did not say very much about it, and I was surprised that it was not accepted.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The hon. Member made a suggestion earlier that I should accept certain alternative words. If he remembers the exact words and will repeat them, I should like to have an opportunity of considering them. I think they were something like "by such an appropriate official as the commissioners shall approve." If he can recall the words, perhaps he will repeat them.

Sir D. HERBERT: I am afraid I can not recall them. Very likely I can recall some of them. I want the Clause to specify the kind of way in which it can be certified. As long as that is a reasonable way, I do not mind about the form of words. I suggest
by a duly authorised agent of that body recognised as such by the commissioners,
that is, if the Financial Secretary insists on having such words put in. I think, however, my original words are best:
by the signature of one of those persons or their duly authorised agent.
I do not take much real interest in trying to polish up this Clause, because I think the whole Clause is a mistake. It says that it is to be done in a specified way. Why not say how it is to be done? We have had enough in this country of leaving things to be dealt with by bureaucrats, and this is one case which we ought to settle. What is the Financial Secretary's defence? It is that the Special Commissioners will know best who is the person who ought to certify. Are they really the people who know best the individuals in the office of the Southern Railway or any other railway company? Do they know best the employés of the Wakefield Corporation?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: : I can probably now satisfy the hon. Member by this form of words, which, I think,
meets all the legitimate cases—in place of the words "in such manner as may be specified" to substitute the words "by a duly authorised officer of such body." I think that that meets the suggestion put forward, and if the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment, I shall be happy to move the appropriate Amendment in the form I have suggested.

Sir D. HERBERT: On that understanding, I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 16, line 13, to leave out the words:
in such manner as may be specified,
and to insert instead thereof the words:
by a duly authorised officer of such body.

Hon. MEMBERS: "Signature!"

The CHAIRMAN: I have put the Question, and read the Amendment. Why should hon. Members say something else?

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I should like to say a word on that.

The CHAIRMAN: Major Davies.

Major DAVIES: I think the matter is getting clarified, but is not quite clear yet. If the Financial Secretary considers for a moment, he will appreciate that the word "signature" is necessary. I should like to say a word in connection with the Amendment that has now been approved by the Government front Bench, because the Financial Secretary, in spite of the usual benevolence of his methods, seems to have betrayed a disagreeably suspicious nature over this Amendment. He has done the right thing in giving way on this Amendment. The information which it is properly desired by the Special Commissioners to obtain is not in the nature of an ordinary copyist's work. It entails an original piece of work, because it constitutes a correct interpretation of a demand and therefore a selection from an existing list. There is a considerable responsibility in producing that selection. It must be accurate, which is its whole point. The Special Commissioners are desiring to check errors on the part of taxpayers.
The whole reason for their making this demand is that they may have accurate information. That accurate information is contained admittedly in the records of the company or body corporate, but its presentation to the Commissioners depends on the ability, accuracy and work of some particular official. If he fails in those respects, then the body corporate for which he is acting will be liable for these heavy penalties of as such as £50 at a time, and the number of times on which they may be fined is apparently unlimited. We are putting on the representative, whoever he may be, of the body corporate, an original work, not a mere copyist's work, and the responsibility for the accuracy attached to it. That shows how important it is that we should have very definitely expressed who is to do the work and in what form it is to be done, and not leave the decision to anyone, not even the present Financial Secretary, in whom we have the most supreme confidence, but who may not be always filling that position. While it is not in Order for me to move a further manuscript Amendment to the form which the Financial Secretary has consented to submit to the Committee, I do not consider it as satisfactory in regard to the word "specified." Everyone believes it means "specified by the Commissioners," but it does not say so.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The word "specified" has gone.

Major DAVIES: "Certified" is the word to which I was referring. The Financial Secretary has put forward certain words, but I would ask him to give this matter further consideration, and I am sure he will agree that for grammatical accuracy the word "signature" is desirable as an Amendment to his Amendment, and for those reasons I hope that he will be able to agree that that is a satisfactory and a clearer way of conveying into the Bill what is evidently his intention.

Sir K. WOOD: I would like to make one observation on this matter, although I must disagree with my hon. Friend behind me. I think the word "certified" does imply the signature of the duly authorised agent. The word "certification" is generally used in this connection, and I do not think it necessary to have the word "signature." We are entitled to complain of the long time the
Financial Secretary has been in arriving at what ought to be a very plain and simple Amendment to this Clause. The matter was very clearly and concisely stated by the hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert), yet the Financial Secretary has taken nearly an hour in coming to a conclusion on a matter of not very great importance. The Government ought to have more consideration for the Committee than to spend nearly an hour on an Amendment of this character. It is not the way we should expect business to be conducted in this House. It is a matter about which we must make some comment. We have an important Bill, and the Financial Secretary takes three quarters of an hour to come to a conclusion on a very straightforward matter. It ought not to have taken him all that time. He has impeded the progress of the Mil by this long delay. I hope that if the Financial Secretary does not feel equal to dealing with these matters, we shall not any longer be delayed by the Members of the Government in the way we have been.

Mr. E. BROWN: I would like to remind the right hon. Gentleman of a little verse which I would paraphrase for him. The verse runs
There is no expeditious road
To pack and label men for God,
And save them by the barrel load.
I would paraphrase it in these words:
There is no expeditious road
To pack and label men for tax,
And tax them by the barrel load.

Major COLFOX: I would like to thank the Financial Secretary for the concession he has made and at the same time point out to the Committee how much better progress is made in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer than when he is present.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not see that that has anything to do with the Amendment.

Major COLFOX: If that is so, then I shall not pursue it, but that seemed to me the cause of having got the concession. In any case, it always seems to me that it is of the utmost importance that all acts of Parliament, especially Finance Acts, should be drafted in a very clear and specific manner. There should be no room for any doubt or any question of
interpretation or for other authorities—in this case it is the Commissioners of Income Tax—to amplify and supplement the Act of Parliament. All the powers that are required should be explicitly laid down in the Act of Parliament and should not be left to be specified by the Commissioners or any other body. By doing what we are asked to do to-day, handing over to the Commissioners the power under an act of Parliament of making regulations of a very important nature, we are handing over to them our own responsibility and duty to legislate carefully and with due deliberation without unnecessary hurry and rush.
By leaving to the Commissioners the power to specify first one thing, then another, and then a third, we are, in fact, failing in the work for which we are elected, namely, to legislate carefully and in detail and, therefore, although the concession made by the Financial Secretary is a good one, it does not go far enough, although it does make the Clause more definite than it was before. It is undoubtedly a slight improvement. We were told by the Financial Secretary in an earlier speech that, in fact, the words of the Clause "in such manner as may be specified" really mean "by such persons as may be specified". I should like to ask advice on the matter, because it always seems to me that the interpretation that lawyers put upon words is frequently not the same as the interpretation which those words naturally sand normally bear. I can see no meaning in the words "in such manner as may be specified."

The CHAIRMAN: Is there any use in discussing words which the Committee wish to take out?

Major COLFOX: I see the force of your point, and I will content myself by thanking the Financial Secretary for the concession he has made.

Commander SOUTHBY: I have been interested in the arguments presented on this side in this matter, but I should like to have some expression of opinion from the front bench opposite regarding the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Yeovil (Major Davies), who tried to persuade us that a thing that is put down as specified and not certified has a meaning which the ordinary layman does not understand it to mean. Yet when we ask that it should be made quite
plain, and that we should put "signature" in there is complete silence on the part of the Attorney-General who only by a shake of the head signified to those of us who sit here that it would not be necessary to put in the word "signature." His argument was reinforced by the right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), but, there again, that is only an expression of opinion by another member of the legal profession. Could not we have something more than a nod? It may be as good as a wink to hon. Members opposite, but we would like a little more argument as to why the word "signature" is not necessary in this Clause which is specific in everything except saying what the Clause means.
I see the Clause begins with "Special Commissioners," and goes on with "specified" several times over, yet when we ask to have it made clear, not for the legal gentlemen who sit in the House but

for the ordinary layman who has to suffer under this Clause eventually, we are told it is quite clear, and that such and such a thing is not necessary; that "specified" means one thing and "certified" another. Could we not have an explanation of just why it is not necessary to put in the word "signature"? I am glad the Financial Secretary has accepted in substance the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend, but it seems to me as a layman that it would be better if we had the word "signature" here. If it is unnecessary, perhaps we will be allowed to have the reasons.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put,"

The Committee divided: Ayes, 202; Noes, 76.

Division No. 358.]
AYES.
[1.55 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Gill, T. H.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Glassey, A. E.
Lees, J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Gossling, A. G.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Alpass, J. H.
Gould, F.
Lindley, Fred W.


Ammon, Charles George
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Arnott, John
Granville, E.
Logan, David Gilbert


Aske, Sir Robert
Gray, Milner
Longbottom, A. W.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Longden, F.


Barnes, Alfred John
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Groves, Thomas E.
Lunn, William


Bellamy, Albert
Grundy, Thomas W.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Benson, G.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
McElwee, A.


Bowen, J. W.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
McEntee, V. L.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Harris, Percy A.
McShane, John James


Brockway, A. Fenner
Haycock, A. W.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Bromfield, William
Hayday, Arthur
Mansfield, W.


Brothers, M.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff. S.)
Marley, J.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Marshall, F.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Mathers, George


Buchanan, G.
Herriotts, J.
Messer, Fred


Burgess, F. G.
Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth)
Middleton, G.


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Mills, J. E.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hollins, A.
Milner, Major J.


Charleton, H. C.
Hopkin, Daniel
Montague, Frederick


Church, Major A. G.
Horrabin, J. F.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Clarke, J. S.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Morley, Ralph


Cluse, W. S.
Isaacs, George
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Mart, D. L.


Compton, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Moses, J. J. H.


Cove, William G.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Daggar, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphllly)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)


Dallas, George
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Muff, G.


Dalton, Hugh
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Muggeridge, H. T.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Murnin, Hugh


Dukes, C.
Kelly, W. T.
Nathan, Major H. L.


Ede, James Chuter
Kennedy, Thomas
Noel Baker, P. J.


Edmunds, J. E.
Kinley, J.
Oldfield, J. R.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kirkwood, D.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Egan, W. H.
Lathan, G.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Elmley, Viscount
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Palin, John Henry


Freeman, Peter
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Palmer, E. T.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lawrence, Susan
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Gibbins, Joseph
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Simmons, C. J.
Vaughan, D. J.


Potts, John S.
Sinkinson, George
Wallace, H. W.


Price, M. P.
Siteh, Charles H.
Watkins, F. C.


Quibell, D. J. K.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Ramsay, T. B. Wlison
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Raynes, W. R.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Wellock, Wilfred


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Westwood, Joseph


Ritson, J.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
White, H. G.


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Romeril, H. G.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Sorensen, R.
Williams, David (Swansea. East)


Rowson, Guy
Stamford, Thomas W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Stephen, Campbell
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Sander, W. S.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Sawyer, G. F.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Scurr, John
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Thurtle, Ernest
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Shield, George William
Tinker, John Joseph
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Tout, W. J.



Shillaker, J. F.
Townend, A. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Hayes and Mr. Paling.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Hartington, Marquess of
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Beaumont, M. W.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Bird, Ernest Roy
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Brass, Captain Sir William
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Briscoe, Richard George
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Smithers, Waldron


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Colville, Major D. J.
Long, Major Eric
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lymington, Viscount
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Dawson, Sir Philip
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mulrhead, A. J.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Ganzoni, Sir John
O'Connor, T. J.
Wells, Sydney R.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Womersley, W. J.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Ramsbotham, H.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell



Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Salmon, Major I.
Captain Sir George Bowyer and Sir


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
George Penny.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)



Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Question, "That words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put accordingly, and negatived.

The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment I select is on page 2277. Sir Henry Buckingham. Mr. Ramsbotham, Mr. Womersley.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I beg to move——

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM rose——

The CHAIRMAN: I called the hon. Member, and he did not rise.

Hon. MEMBERS: He did rise.

The CHAIRMAN: I called the hon. Member and he did not rise. The next hon. Member was proceeding before the hon. Member rose.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I rose in my place the moment you called my name.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member would have proceeded if he had risen. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen will please keep order.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I must with great respect——

The CHAIRMAN: I understand that the hon. Member has risen to a point of Order.

Mr. SAMUEL: The point of Order I would like to put to you is that I myself saw the hon. Member rise. [Interruption.]

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) has an Amendment on the Paper, and I call upon him now.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: The hon. Gentleman did rise. Both you and I, Mr. Young, can make a mistake. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I have to obey the Chair and not any rabble on the other side.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not call hon. Members on the other side of the House, a "rabble." They should leave it to me. I ask the hon. Member to address the Committee upon the Amendment.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: You did not call me to Order, but dozens of voices across the floor did.

The CHAIRMAN: I call upon the hon. Member to move his Amendment.

Mr. THURTLE: May I ask whether you, Mr. Young, are going to allow the expression "rabble" to pass as a Parliamentary expression? If it is not Parliamentary, ought not the hon. Member to withdraw it?

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think it is a Parliamentary expression, but I am not sure about it, so I thought I would leave it to the hon. Member.

Mr. E. BROWN: Was not the word "rabble" used frequently in this House as long ago as the Long Parliament?

The CHAIRMAN: My memory does not go so far back as the Long Parliament.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I am willing to withdraw it, although it is a perfectly good English word.
I beg to move in page 16, line 19, to leave out the words:
five shillings in respect of each one hundred entries,
and to insert instead thereof the words
sixpence or such less sum as such body of persons may prescribe for every one hundred words or fractional part thereof required to be copied.
In moving this Amendment, my object is that at any rate the Special Commissioners shall have no greater privilege than was granted by the House to the shareholdres of companies under the Companies Act. It was reasonable that the sum of money paid should be sufficient in view of the work entailed in carrying out the orders of the Special Commissioners. I am, like many hon. Members, utterly opposed to this Clause as it stands, but I am trying to look for something in the shape of an Amendment
that will make a bad Clause a little less bad. As the hon. Gentleman has accepted one or two Amendments from this side, perhaps we shall have an early intimation that he is prepared to accept this. This is a very reasonable Amendment. It has not been put down in any way to cause obstruction. Many members, if the Committee were allowed a free vote, would vote against the Clause altogether.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: Judging from recent experience, the acceptance of this Amendment would not be likely to shorten the discussion. Apart from that, I cannot accept the Amendment. I think if the hon. Member had been thoroughly conversant with what is likely to happen, and if he had been anxious that the remuneration should be larger, he would not have moved this Amendment, because under it the remuneration is, in a large number of cases, less than it would be if the original words remained. Section 98 of the Companies Act, 1929, provides that any member or other person may require a copy of the register on payment of sixpence, or such less sum as that company may prescribe for every 100 words. The hon. Member has taken the words of his Amendment from that Clause. A Clause in an Act which was passed not long ago by this House—the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925—follows very much the same lines in regard to getting copies of documents. For these reasons, it is a perfectly simple matter. We cannot accept the Amendment.

Sir K. WOOD: I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will reconsider this matter. I want to make one observation on his first statement. We are asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider these Amendments on their merits, not on the question of whether after an Amendment has been accepted, discussion has ceased. That is a new method of dealing with Amendments. I do not think the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has any complaint. I have had some experience of accepting Amendments, some five years, and I do not know that I ever complained that after I accepted an Amendment the discussion was continued for a reasonable time afterwards.
With regard to this proposal, I do suggest that the Chancellor should, at any rate, reconsider the amount which is to be paid under Clause 2 at the rate of
five shillings in respect of each 100 entries. I suggest that this is a new provision. It is putting, for the first time, an obligation upon not only companies but upon municipal corporations. If we wipe out companies altogether—which would not be an extraordinary thing to do for the present Government; in many respects they have done their best, and they are not very successful at the moment—but if you rule them out altogether, there is still the corporations, and I do not think anyone will say that the town clerks of any of the boroughs would say that the rate of five shillings in respect of each 100 entries was a reasonable amount. I should like to know whether there has been any consideration of this point. Also, dealing with a document of this character is a matter of rather more than simply copying out. People will be under a penalty if it is not a true and proper record of the particular entry, either in the Corporation's book or in the books of a particular company, and I would suggest to the members of the Committee that they should not regard it simply as a copying matter. It is much more than that. The official who could devote himself to this particular task might very well occupy a very considerable portion of his time in dealing with that particular matter.
I would suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary should look at this matter again and make some suggestion himself as to what is to be done. It is a matter which obviously requires further consideration. I did not quite follow what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said as to how this particular Amendment would work out in practice. I understand that what he said was that in some cases it would not be as good as the Clause which is now before the Committee and that in certain other cases it would be better. All we are endeavouring to urge upon the Committee is that this particular item of remuneration should be improved. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is able to tell us in what particular respect it can be done we will put our amendment in proper shape.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will forgive me if I give one or two figures. The ordinary entry in a share register is esti-
mated at about ten words, and ten entries are usually reckoned to be worth sixpence under the section of the Companies' Act to which reference has been made. The Chancellor of the Exchequer leaves out of account the question of joint accounts and trustee holdings which figure very largely in Municipal stocks. In this case the number of words of an entry was from 25 to 30; therefore, 100 entries is going to run to 2,000 or 3,000 words. It is not quite so small a point as the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to make out. There is another point in the case of allotment sheets and the number of words in an entry is very much larger. One other point I would like to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that there is no provision made for a minimum fee. The whole matter is not as simple as the Chancellor thinks, and I venture to hope that before the Amendment is disposed of we shall have some explanation.

Sir D. HERBERT: Owing to the remarkable way in which this Clause has been drawn, I frankly confess I do not understand the intended meaning of a specified class of entry. Does it mean going through 1,000 names and selecting a particular class? I remember very well when I was a young man I wrote to the custodian of a certain registry of births or deaths—I am not quite sure which it was—to search within a certain period of time, and I gave the years, to find an entry of a certain birth or death. He looked it up for me, and sent me a certificate. I proposed to send him 3s. 6d. for his certificate, but he said, "No, 3s. 6d. is all right for the certificate, but I am entitled to 1s. for every page I have to turn over to find that particular entry."—[Interruption]—I do not think that any hon. Member would wish to select 100 holders of £1,000 of stock out of a total of some 20,000 or 30,000 names for the niggardly remuneration of 5s. I suggest this wants some kind of alteration. There are such people as law stationers and agents who search registers who have a regular scale of fees. I think that if the Attorney-General will look into it, he will come to the conclusion that some alteration ought to be made in this. I am not prepared at the moment to suggest what it should be. Before the Report stage, something might be done to deal with the question.

Mr. MacROBERT: I was going to ask if this 5s. in respect of 100 entries applies also in respect of 400 entries. Entry means, in relation to any register, so much thereof as relates to the securities held by any one person. I understand that the person may hold at least four types of shares, and, therefore, the total remuneration in respect of 400 entries is 5s., which is totally inadequate.

Major NATHAN: I should like to reinforce the point that has already been made, and to direct the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to this matter as one of practical every-day importance in the conduct of business in the City of London. There should not be much ambiguity here. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Attorney-General will turn to the sixth Schedule of the Companies Act, 1929, he will see exactly what is contained in a register. The contents of the register are a number of columns. The first column is for the folio; then there is a separate column for surname, another column for Christian names, another for address, and another for occupation. Thus, there are five columns before we even approach the subject matter of the inquiry. Then there are columns for the number of shares held by existing members at date of return, two columns relating to particulars of shares transferred since the date of the last return by persons who are still members, and two more columns relating to particulars of shares transferred since the date of the last return by persons who have ceased to be members. Then there is another column for remarks. The real subject matter to be dealt with requires therefore an additional six columns.
Let me try to deal with this in terms of number of words. I am thinking not of a single entry, but of the power given by this Bill to call on, say, the Midland Railway with 280,000 shareholders. [An HON. MEMBER,: "Terrible"!] An hon. Member says "Terrible". If he will contemplate the figures, they are astronomical. What does this represent in terms of clerical work and paper? Merely to get down the extract as to the surname, Christian name, address and occupation, will not take less than eight words. The particulars required, if they are referable
merely to one particular class of share, as ordinarily understood and not in terms of this Bill, will mean at least a further eight words. That is, 16 words for a single entry relating to a single person. There are to be 100 entries. That is 1,600 words at 6d. for 100 words, or 8s. under the Amendment, but, according to this Bill, 5s.
It goes very much further. There are ordinary shares, deferred shares, preference shares, first debenture stock, second debenture stock, preferred ordinary shares, and all the rest of it. They appear in reference to the register of a single company and to a single Member. That is bad enough. These matters have got to be investigated. It is skilled work, and, if not done skilfully, it imposes on the officials of the company heavy penalties. I am not suggesting that the work cannot be done, but that it can only be done at a very considerable dislocation of the day-to-day business of the company and at a wage which hon. Members opposite, if ascribed to themselves, would rightly describe as sweated wages. Hon. Members opposite were inclined to jeer when I said that the figures were astronomical. Let me take a company with 250,000 shareholders. All those members with one entry for all those shareholders, even if you have only one class of share, will come to 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 words. Has any hon. Member ever thought what it means to set on paper 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 words? I wonder if hon. Members realise the comparable length in a book or a newspaper of that number of words. Unless the rights under this Bill are exercised with so scrupulous a care as to make these powers nugatory, they will involve many companies in keeping a special staff for the purpose of nothing else but making these entries. [An HON. MEMBER: "Never"!] Let me test it. Take a company with 250,000 shareholders; there may well be 30 words in reference to each of them, and that is about 7,500,000 words on an ordinary average number of entries. Say you get 200 words on a page, that will be, say, 35,000 pages of copying. And what is produced at the end? A list for the Special Commissioners. 35,000 pages, and nothing produced at the end of it: How long would it take at trade union hours to produce 35,000 pages copied from a register? I ask the hon. Gentlemen on the front
Bench if they have ever seen a company register. If they would look at a company register in one of our great companies, they would see it is not such a simple task for an ordinary clerk to make a copy of the entries one after another, still less if they have to be isolated and selected.
What are the Government doing by this Clause? They are dislocating the business of the company, putting the register out of the use to which it would be put in the ordinary way, putting the company to enormous expense and thereby reducing the profits on which Income Tax will be assessable for the purpose of the revenue. The more this Clause is investigated the more it will be found to be serving no useful purpose to the special commissioners, to be doing a disservice to the Revenue, and involving such a feeling of irritation, annoyance and waste in the ordinary every-day business of life by making people who ought to be producing something, waste their time with making entries, that these offences will not easily be forgotten against this Government.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Labour party must be feeling pretty well ashamed of themselves for keeping the Committee sitting up all through the night in order that they may sweat and grind down the clerks of this country. We thought that they were angling for the support of the black-coated workingman, but it is now clear what ideas they have of the hours that clerks should work and the wages they should receive. I could hardly follow all the figures given from the Liberal benches, but it is clear that the remuneration proposed by the Government is an insulting pittance compared with the labours that will be imposed on these clerical staffs and the companies engaged on this work. We know the ideas the Labour party has of work. The President of the Board of Education said he must keep the children at school to save the drudgery of minding machines, and the First Commissioner of Works spoke against manual labour. Therefore, machines and manual work are to be avoided, but the clerk is to work all day for this miserable sum. Could anything more clearly reveal the cynicism that has
actuated the Government in their treatment of these clerks in this particular way? Of course, they regard no labour as respectable except the labour that votes for them. That is the frank, naked position. It is because these clerks are not among their political supporters that this miserable remuneration is to be paid to them.
That is one hypothesis. The other is more flattering to the Labour party and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is supposed to take charge of the commercial interests of this country. If the clerks are to be paid properly, and are not to have this brutish, blood-sucking blow, then the burden has to be borne by these companies. At the darkest moment in our economic history, this dreary period of dark misfortune over which the right hon. Gentleman presides with such seraphic glee, he has struck another blow at the companies because, if the clerks are to be properly paid, it is quite clear that a burden must be placed on our commercial and limited liability institutions which will add to their difficulties. Which of the two courses should be followed? What are we to say when we give an account of your actions to the electors of the country? Are we to say that you are desirous that the burden should be thrown upon the companies or sweated out of the clerks? You can take your choice. Whichever it is, I am sure that to keep the Committee up to such a time on such a point is trying to screw the last ounce of work out of the clerical staff. I will not say it is an act unworthy of a Labour Government, but there could be no more revealing act of the utter humbug and hypocrisy characterising their whole policy.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: It was astonishing to me to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that this was quite a trifling matter. I wonder if he realises there is more work in connection with the obtaining of these entries than he imagines. There are not only all these various classes of shares which require the dates as well as the names, but in the case of sales the names of the transferror and transferee. From what one can gather, and from looking into the big registers, it would quite well take an ordinary clerk an hour. If one considers the number of these entries, hon. Members will see what he would get if
he were paid on piece-rates when one entry might take an hour. It would be very much more adequate payment to pay by the hundred words than by the entry.

Mr. T. J. O'CONNOR: I doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman, after insisting on this Clause standing as it is, can give any enthusiastic support to the work of the Labour Office at Geneva. This is work of a very onerous, difficult and skilled character. My right hon. Friend has pointed out that the word "entry" means, according to the definition Clause,
in relation to any register, so much thereof as relates to the securities held by any one person.
That may include debentures, debenture stock, preference shares, ordinary shares, or preference stock.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This is the fourth or fifth time that that has been repeated.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I bow to your ruling, but I would like to point out that there is yet another reason for apprehending that the work to be done in connection with the compiling of these registers is of alarming proportions. The shares may very well be split holdings, allottee holdings or nominee holdings and so would only be remunerated at the rate of one person. There is reason to fear that the amount of work that will be necessary in order to compile a copy of the register may reach the astronomical proportions that have been referred to. But when this work is done what is the value of it to be? In the case of a company whose shares are constantly and freely changing hands on the Stock Exchange, the whole face of the register will have undergone transformation by the time the copy is completed, and, therefore, the task will have to be repeated again and again if the inquisition is to be of any value whatever. It will be necessary for companies to employ permanent staffs of underpaid, sweated clerks. The Government may fairly be told that they are aiding and abetting the commission of a crime by encouraging companies either to employ sweated labour, or by going outside the memorandum of association, by employing men they are not empowered to employ by the memorandum. The course upon which
the Government are embarking by refusing ordinary humanitarian remuneration to the gentlemen engaged on this difficult task passes my comprehension. That the work will be clerical work of no possible value to the Revenue increases the exasperation that we feel, and intensifies our determination to do what we can for a body of workers who deserve well.

Sir. A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will put only one perfectly practical point which has not yet been put to the Attorney-General or the Financial Sectretary, and I do not know if they themselves have been through an actual register of a company in order to see the work involved. Let me take a simple, practical case. Supposing they wanted to get a specific class of entry of the type that the Attorney-General mentioned as a possible case, of people having 500 shares or over, and I am not dealing with the question of an entry being possibly in four or five classes of shares; I am taking it of the same class of shares, ordinary shares, preference shares, or whatever category it may be. Some companies in their register amalgamate the holdings that any particular person has got, and, therefore, it will be comparatively easy in cases like that to see whether a person has got 500 shares. Even so you have to turn over an immense amount of leaves in order to see how many people there are of that character who would own 500 shares. The case becomes much more complicated when you come to the case of companies who do not amalgamate their different holdings. They keep an index of the names of the people who possess shares, but the actual entries are very often separated into a large number of different items.
In order, therefore, to try to get at the sort of class desired the person, who is under a penalty of £50 to produce the list of the people who have got 500 shares, has got to go to the index and refer to the individual items. On speculation, so to speak, he has to go through the different items in order to see whether the person comes into the class owning 500 shares or not. That is a very complicated piece of work, and, what is more, it may mean that when he has done it he finds that the person, according to the catalogue, does not come into that category and from that
point of view the whole of the work done in that particular case is wasted, and it is not paid for. The thing obviously entails a very large amount of work indeed, and you may not get what you want. If anybody wanted to get round a regulation of this kind, suposing it was a person who owned 500 shares, he could put 300 in his own name and 200 in his wife's and obviously, the information ought to be got at in a different way. Even if you try to get it by this method, it is quite clear that the possible mass of work involved is so great that a payment of 5s. for 100 entries, involving a great deal of work which may be entirely wasted in the process and therefore not renumerated at all, is likely to be grossly insufficient and I would ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he has, in fact, communicated with the public companies, and whether they are of opinion that 5s. for 100 entries is what they consider sufficient.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: This is a point of very real substance. The object of this Clause undoubtedly is to enable the Commissioners to track down any evader. But a shareholders' register contains at least the following particulars: the name of the shareholder, his occupation, the amount of his holding, and the date of the acquisition of the holding. Supposing the Special Commissioners form the opinion that a particular individual was evading taxation in respect of some particular interest on shares which he held. This Clause will not give the Special Commissioners power to go to the company and say, "We want to know——

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The only question under discussion at the moment is the amount of remuneration and not merits or de-merits of the method of obtaining information.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: I was just coming to what the Special Commissioners would do in pursuit of their duty and how they would be enabled to save money. If they come to the conclusion that a particular individual is evading taxation, this Clause does not give them power to go to the company and ask for the holding. It does give them power to ask the company to give a list of shareholders in a particular class. The Special Commissioners might ask for one
particular class who held not more than 500 shares. They might narrow dawn their demand to shareholders who had residence in a certain district, or had acquired shares after a certain date. I believe the Clause would give the Special Commissioners power to ask for any particular individual. A company might be asked to furnish one name and would be paid at the rate of ½d. There is a serious risk of allowing the Special Commissioners to impose an intolerable burden if the Clause goes through in its present form.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is entirely out of Order in the whole of his speech. The Amendment is whether the remuneration is sufficient or not.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: The Clause as drafted will allow a payment for a particular entry of ½d. That is not sufficient remuneration.

Major HARVEY: The Committee is entitled to some kind of explanation. I have listened for the last hour to demands from this side of the Committee, but we have had little from the other side. We have had a good deal of discussion as to the sweated labour of clerks. The Committee must be clear on this point. The payment would not be made direct to the clerks, who would be drawing their ordinary wages whether they were doing that kind of work or not. I think the money would be paid to the company, and they should receive a higher rate in accordance with the Amendment. These higher rates should be paid for more reasons than one. The higher rates would be a distinct deterrent to officials in regard to demanding these long and involved lists and large numbers of returns. In some cases the Government are anxious to pour out people's money, but in this case they are very niggardly in paying for what they intend to obtain.

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: I am reluctant to intervene, but there is a point which has puzzled me in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated in a somewhat dark and allusive manner that it would be better for the companies if they allowed the words in the Bill to remain; that, in fact, the remuneration in the Bill was more valuable than that
proposed by the Amendment. Are there any figures in support of that view? An hon. Member below the gangway referred to the figures of shareholders as "astronomical." What is the number of words in each of the entries in a register? Without that knowledge, we cannot come to a decision. I should be exceedingly grateful if that point could be cleared up. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal in the Bill is the more generous, it would be futile to try to impose an alteration which would mean less remuneration. If it be the case that the remuneration in the Amendment is more generous—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is simply repeating himself.

Mr. MORRISON: I am sorry if I have been repeating myself. I have tried to put the point, and it is clear that you at least, Mr. Dunnico, have understood what I have tried to say. If it is inadequate remuneration, we should not sanction a scale which might inflict hardship upon people.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: rose in, his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 198; Noes, 73.

Division No. 359.]
AYES.
[3.12 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Middleton, G.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Mills, J. E.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Milner, Major J.


Alpass, J. H.
Harris, Percy A.
Montague, Frederick


Ammon, Charles George
Haycock, A. W.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Arnott, John
Hayday, Arthur
Morley, Ralph


Aske, Sir Robert
Hayes, John Henry
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Mort, D. L.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Moses, J. J. H.


Bellamy, Albert
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Benson, G.
Herriotts, J.
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Muff, G.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Murnin, Hugh


Bowen, J. W.
Hollins, A.
Nathan, Major H. L.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hopkin, Daniel
Noel Baker, P. J.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Horrabin, J. F.
Oldfield, J. R.


Bromfield, William
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Brothers, M.
Isaacs, George
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Palin, John Henry


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Palmer, E. T.


Burgess, F. G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Charleton, H. C.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Church, Major A. G.
Kelly, W. T.
Potts, John S.


Clarke, J. S.
Kennedy, Thomas
Price, M. P.


Cluse, W. S.
Kinley, J.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour.
Kirkwood, D.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Cove, William G.
Lathan, G.
Raynes, W. R.


Daggar, George
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Dallas, George
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Dalton, Hugh
Lawrence, Susan
Ritson, J.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Dukes, C.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Romeril, H. G.


Ede, James Chuter
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Edmunds, J. E.
Lees, J.
Rowson, Guy


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lindley, Fred W.
Sanders, W. S.


Egan, W. H.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sawyer, G. F.


Freeman, Peter
Logan, David Gilbert
Scurr, John


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Longbottom, A. W.
Shield, George William


Gibbins, Joseph
Longden, F.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Gibson H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shillaker, J. F.


Gill, T. H.
Lunn, William
Simmons, C. J.


Glassey, A. E.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Sinkinson, George


Gossling, A. G.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sitch, Charles H.


Gould, F.
McElwee, A.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Granville, E.
McShane, John James
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Gray, Milner
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mansfield, W.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Marley, J.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Groves, Thomas E.
Marshall, Fred
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Grundy, Thomas W.
Mathers, George
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Messer, Fred
Sorensen, R.


Stamford, Thomas W.
Wallace, H. W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Stephen, Campbell
Watkins, F. C.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Strauss, G. R.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Wellock, Wilfred
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Thurtle, Ernest
Westwood, Joseph
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Tinker, John Joseph
White, H. G.



Tout, W. J.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.-


Townend, A. E.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Paling.


Vaughan, D. J.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Beaumont, M. W.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Bird, Ernest Roy
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Lamb, Sir J. O.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Briscoe, Richard George
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Smithers, Waldron


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Long, Major Eric
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Lymington, Viscount
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Colville, Major D. J.
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Dawson, Sir Philip
Muirhead, A. J.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Edmondson, Major A. J.
O'Connor, T. J.
Wells, Sydney R.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Womersley, W. J.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Ramsbotham, H.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell



Greene, W. P. Crawford
Ross, Major Ronald D.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Captain Sir George Bowyer and


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Salmon, Major I.
Sir George Penny.


Hartington, Marquess of
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 190; Noes, 78.

Division No. 360.]
AYES.
[3.20 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Egan, W. H.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Alpass, J. H.
Freeman, Peter
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Ammon, Charles George
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.


Arnott, John
Gibbins, Joseph
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Kelly, W. T.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Gill, T. H.
Kennedy, Thomas


Bellamy, Albert
Gossling, A. G.
Kinley, J.


Benson, G.
Gould, F.
Kirkwood, D.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lathan, G.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Granville, E.
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Bowen, J. W.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Law, A. (Rosendale)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Groves, Thomas E.
Lawrence, Susan


Brockway, A. Fenner
Grundy, Thomas W.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Bromfield, William
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)


Brothers, M.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Lees, J.


Buchanan, G.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Burgess, F. G.
Harris, Percy A.
Lindley, Fred W.


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Haycock, A. W.
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hayday, Arthur
Logan, David Gilbert


Charleton, H. C.
Hayes, John Henry
Longbottom, A. W.


Church, Major A. G.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Longden, F.


Clarke, J. S.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Cluse, W. S.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Lunn, William


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Herriotts, J.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Compton, Joseph
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Cove, William G.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
McElwee, A.


Daggar, George
Hollins, A.
McEntee, V. L.


Dallas, George
Hopkin, Daniel
McShane, John James


Dalton, Hugh
Horrabin, J. F.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Mansfield, W.


Dukes, C.
Isaacs, George
Marley, J.


Ede, James Chuter
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Marshall, F.


Edmunds, J. E.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Mathers, George


Messer, Fred
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Middleton, G.
Ritson, J.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Mills, J. E.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Thurtle, Ernest


Milner, Major J.
Romeril, H. G.
Tinker, John Joseph


Montague, Frederick
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Tout, W. J.


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Rowson, Guy
Townend, A. E.


Morley, Ralph
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Vaughan, D. J.


Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Sanders, W. S.
Wallace, H. W.


Mort, D. L.
Sawyer, G. F.
Watkins, F. C.


Moses, J. J. H.
Scurr, John
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).


Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Shield, George William
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wellock, Wilfred


Muff, G.
Shillaker, J. F.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Murnin, Hugh
Simmons, C. J.
Westwood, Joseph


Noel Baker, P. J.
Sinkinson, George
White, H. G.


Oldfield, J. R.
Sitch, Charles H.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Palin, John Henry
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Palmer, E. T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Phillips, Dr. Marion
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Potts, John S.
Sorensen, R.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Price, M. P.
Stamford, Thomas W.



Quibell, D. J. K.
Stephen, Campbell
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Raynes, W. R.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Paling.


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Strauss, G. R.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Aske, Sir Robert
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Beaumont, M. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Hartington, Marquess of
Salmon, Major I.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Briscoe, Richard George
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Long, Major Eric
Smithers, Waldron


Colfox, Major William Philip
Lymington, Viscount
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Colville, Major D. J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Dawson, Sir Philip
Muirhead, A. J.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Nathan, Major H. L.
Wells, Sydney R.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Womersley, W. J.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
O'Connor, T. J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Ganzoni, Sir John
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)



Glassey, A. E.
Penny, Sir George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Captain Wallace and Sir Victor


Gray, Milner
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Warrender.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Ramsbotham, H.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I really must ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is not now satisfied that it is quite beyond the compass and power of the Committee to achieve anything like the task which he has prescribed for us? He has placed before us a programme that is quite impossible. I hope he now sees that these Clauses which he has so unnecessarily introduced into the Finance Bill and works of supererogation in which he so delights, are such that, if they are to be examined as they must be, must necessarily lend themselves
to protracted debate. These debates have been conducted not only by the Conservative Opposition, but representatives of the Liberal party also have taken a most distinguished part. Consequently we claim that the Opposition on this side of the House, constituting a majority of this assembly, although they may not be able to achieve an actual majority, yet have a moral superiority over the Socialist party which ought to be taken into consideration.
The right hon. Gentleman is really not going the right way about getting this Budget. When he shows an intention to carry by main force what ought to be a
matter of tactful persuasion and shows himself ready to brush aside his political opponents and ram down their throats any amount of work he chooses to set before them, then I think it is still the duty of those who have the guardianship of the traditions of this House in their keeping to allow no scamping of the work, tired though we may be of our labours. Even at this stage, I ask whether he cannot make some concession that would enable us to abridge these discussions. Three hours ago it was suggested that we might have wound up the discusion on Clause 18 within an hour. That would have meant that we should not have done full justice to our clerks whose treatment is such a black spot on the labour of this country. If the right hon. Gentleman feels now that he has seen how bleak is the prospect before him and is willing to make a new proposal, I would suggest to him that we should agree to bring Clause 18 to a close before half past four and terminate our proceedings at that. If met in a similar spirit, we should be bound to be at least as good as our word in the matter. I shall no doubt have an opportunity of dealing further with the matter after we have had the reply of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman is apparently in a state of physical exhaustion, and I can quite understand his anxiety to get through, as he did after having boasted of what he was going to do, before the rest of the Committee a few weeks ago. If he had shown the same anxiety to facilitate business 12 hours ago, I might have been more inclined to listen favourably to the appeal which he has made. I shall certainly not accept the offer he has made. The Committee will search the records of this House in vain for a parallel to the slow progress which we have made to-day Not one Clause of importance has been passed. I was justified at the beginning of the sitting in expecting, allowing for reasonable debate, that we should get to the end of Part II. I am not prepared to accept the Motion to report Progress. We shall go on, and if the right hon. Gentleman will make a similar proposal, say, about 12 or one o'clock, then I will consider it.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer well repays my effort. He began by boasting exultingly and triumphantly that I, personally, and some other of my hon. Friends, were in a state of exhaustion. Even if we do feel tired, we shall not fail to exert ourselves. Really, the right hon. Gentleman would be wise to accept the Motion or to make some concession. He has got heavy work to-morrow—a Cabinet meeting to attend at 11 o'clock at which he is to make a general survey of the great progress made by the Labour Government in dealing with our general economic affairs and also the congestion of Parliamentary burliness. Surely, he ought to be reserving himself for that and have some time for slumber and reflection. As far as we are concerned, we have not the least intention of being led into scamping our public duties merely because of the unsuitable hour at which we are compelled to discuss these matters. The right hon. Gentleman has taunted me with having left the last debate two hours before its conclusion. I did so because I had to wind up the debate on unemployment on that very day, and I say quite frankly that I am not capable of giving my attention to such a matter without having two or three hours' sleep. But the work which the right hon. Gentleman has to do is far more important than that which falls to any private Member in winding up a debate. He has the whole finances of the country in his hand. Even if he himself is ready to be carried away by partisanship and to exhaust himself in the struggle, it is really from our point of view desirable that he should be urged to abate something of his ardour and rancour. As nothing I can say will make any impression, it is really not much use my proceeding any further. If I do so, it is not because I have a real expectation of softening his heart, but because I desire to place clearly on record the reasons why we object to this procedure.
It is our duty as representatives of the Opposition to show that this mood and temper, this procedure, these late hours, will not benefit the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but will lead him at every stage deeper and deeper into the mire. The right hon. Gentleman, if he had acted in a reasonable manner, might have been much farther on in his Budget Bill than he is to-day. In the first
place, I do not understand why he does not make some friendly gesture on the merits of this Bill. Why does he insist on carrying all these Clauses through? Why not say, "This Clause will cause a lot of trouble, and so we shall drop it." Why have fifty Clauses in this Bill, many of them trumpery, and insist on all of them? We have a right to be consulted on the merits of the Bill and to help in moulding legislation before Parliament. We are going to insist on our right. The right hon. Gentleman is only the head of a minority. Why does he not treat properly those with almost as many votes behind them as his own party? We recognise that he has to carry on the business of the country and get the money, but subject to that, there is a wide field for give and take and compromise. If he were to adopt that attitude, he would make much more rapid progress. If he imagines that he is going to carry this through by plodding on all the night into the next day and then having another all night sitting on Thursday, he is mistaken. Tomorrow the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be considering the position of business in the House of Commons. A shocking condition of congestion lies before us. There is no greater culprit from the Cabinet point of view—

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: Than you.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not in the right hon. Gentleman's Cabinet. I say there is no greater culprit than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I cannot understand why he has deliberately caused this great political failure and deadlock of business. He may imagine that by refusing our Motion to report Progress and carrying on our debate a little longer he will be successful and will make a case for a guillotine or time table Resolution, but I am convinced that the Liberal party will not take a hand in that respect. They will know perfectly well that once a precedent has been set—[Interruption.] If I am dwelling in too much detail on the danger of the guillotine procedure, then I shall leave that point. I have given the right hon. gentleman a very fair chance of reconsidering his attitude before we reach the hour of noon which he mentioned so inconsiderately. I shall give him a further chance in the course of the next two or three hours in
order to see whether we cannot reach some more satisfactory conclusion than that which he puts before us.

Sir W. BRASS: I would like to make an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ask him if he will consider what the country will think of this evening. I would remind him that the Financial Secretary quite recently spent at least an hour of the time of the Committee over an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend behind me and, after the discussion had gone on for over an hour or an hour and a half—[Interruption]—over an hour anyway—the Financial Secretary accepted the gist of the Amendment in slightly altered words. Therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot possibly blame us for keeping the debate going, when his own Financial Secretary might have shortened it by an hour by accepting the Amendment which he eventually had to accept. How can we get on with this legislation? We have to do from Clause 19 onwards. They are very important Clauses which we have to make better than they are at the present time. They require a great deal of amendment and thought. How can the country get the best out of Parliament if Parliament is going to sit up all night discussing all sorts of things better discussed by day. Take Clause 22 as an example. [Interruption.] There is nothing out of Order in referring to it at not undue length. Under Clause 22 we are going to bring about a quinquennial valuation of the whole property in Great Britain. That is an important subject which we shall have to deal with at great length. Another important Clause is Clause 26 in which we are going to do away with the whole of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act of 1869, the valuation in London, the assessments in the metropolitan area——

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to refer to the important Clauses put down for consideration, but he must not discuss the merits of the Clauses.

Sir W. BRASS: I am not going to do that, but it is very important, because it affects the whole question of valuation—[Interruption]—I can refer to it in that way—[Interruption.]—How can I explain the Clause unless I refer to it, not in great detail, but to state what the Clause states, if I cannot say that this is
going to alter the Valuation of the Metropolis Act of 1869, how can I discuss this question? I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has treated us very badly indeed. He has tried to force this Budget through the House without discussion. He has moved the Closure on many occasions and prevented us from having a free opportunity of discussion.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have stated more than once that acceptance of the Closure is in the custody of the Chair, and there must be no reflection on the Chair.

Sir W. BRASS: I apologise; that was not my intention. I meant to say, not that the Closure was accepted, but that

the Closure was moved by the right hon. Gentleman. If I have cast any reflection upon you, I humbly apologise, because that it the last thing that I should have wished. I say that we should now report Progress in order that we may have an opportunity of discussing these important Clauses at a time of day when we feel that we are able to discuss them.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 191; Noes, 69.

Division No. 361.]
AYES.
[3.54 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mills, J. E.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Milner, Major J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Montague, Frederick


Alpass, J. H.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Morgan Dr. H. B.


Ammon, Charles George
Haycock, A. W.
Morley, Ralph


Arnott, John
Hayday, Arthur
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Aske, Sir Robert
Hayes, John Henry
Mort, D. L.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Moses, J. J. H.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Bellamy, Albert
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)


Benson, G.
Herriotts, J.
Muff, G.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Murnin, Hugh


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hollins, A.
Nathan, Major H. L.


Bowen, J. W.
Hopkin, Daniel
Noel Baker, P. J.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Horrabin, J. F.
Oldfield, J. R.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Bromfield, William
Isaacs, George
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Brothers, M.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Palin, John Henry.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Palmer, E. T.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Burgess, F. G.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Kelly, W. T.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, Thomas
Potts, John S.


Church, Major A. G.
Kinley, J.
Price, M. P.


Clarke, J. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Cluse, W. S.
Lathan, G.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Raynes, W. R.


Compton, Joseph
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Cove, William G.
Lawrence, Susan
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Daggar, George
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Ritson, J.


Dallas, George
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Romeril, H. G.


Dalton, Hugh
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lees, J.
Rowson, Guy


Dukes, C.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Ede, James Chuter
Lindley, Fred W.
Sanders, W. S.


Edmunds, J. E.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sawyer, G. F.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Logan, David Gilbert
Scurr, John


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Longbottom, A. W.
Shield, George William


Egan, W. H.
Longden, F.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Freeman, Peter
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shillaker, J. F.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lunn, William
Simmons, C. J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Sinkinson, George


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sitch, Charles H.


Gill, T. H.
McElwee, A.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Glassey, A. E.
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Gossling, A. G.
McShane, John James
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Gould, F.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mansfield, W.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Granville, E.
Marley, J.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Gray, Milner
Marshall, Fred
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mathers, George
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Messer, Fred
Sorensen, R.


Groves, Thomas E.
Middleton, G.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Stephen, Campbell
Watkins, F. C.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Strauss, G. R.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Wellock, Wilfred
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Tinker, John Joseph
Westwood, Joseph
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Tout, W. J.
White, H. G.



Townend, A. E.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Vaughan, D. J.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Paling.


Wallace, H. W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Hartington, Marquess of
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Beaumont, M. W.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Salmon, Major I.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brass, Captain Sir William
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Briscoe, Richard George
Lamb, Sir J. O.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Long, Major Eric
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Lymington, Viscount
Smithers, Waldron


Colville, Major D. J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Stanley Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Dawson, Sir Philip
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Warrender, Sir Victor


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Muirhead, A. J.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Wells, Sydney R.


Ganzoni, Sir John
O'Connor, T. J.
Womersley, W. J.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Ramsbotham, H.



Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ross, Major Ronald D.
Captain Sir George Bowyer and Sir




Sir George Penny.

Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 68; Noes, 191.

Division No. 362.]
AYES.
[4.2 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Beaumont, M. W.
Hartington, Marquess of
Salmon, Major I.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxt'd, Henley)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Brass, Captain Sir William
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Briscoe, Richard George
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smith, R. W. (Aherd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Long, Major Eric
Smithers, Waldron


Colfox, Major William Philip
Lymington, Viscount
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Colville, Major D. J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Dawson, Sir Philip
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Wells, Sydney R.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Muirhead, A. J.
Womersley, W. J.


Elliot, Major Waiter E.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Ganzoni, Sir John
O'Connor, T. J.



Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Ramsbotham, H.
Sir George Penny and Sir Victor


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ross, Major Ronald D.
Warrender.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Benson, G.
Burgess, F. G.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Caine, Derwent Hall-


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)


Alpass, J. H.
Bowen, J. W.
Charleton, H. C.


Ammon, Charles George
Broad, Francis Alfred
Church, Major A. G.


Arnott, John
Brockway, A. Fenner
Clarke, J. S.


Aske, Sir Robert
Bromfield, William
Cluse, W. S.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Brothers, M.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour


Barnes, Alfred John
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Compton, Joseph


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Cove, William G.


Bellamy, Albert
Buchanan, G.
Daggar, George


Dallas, George
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Ritson, J.


Dalton, Hugh
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Romeril, H. G.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Dukes, C.
Lees, J.
Rowson, Guy


Ede, James Chuter
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Edmunds, J. E.
Lindley, Fred W.
Sanders, W. S.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sawyer, G. F.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Logan, David Gilbert
Scurr, John


Egan, W. H.
Longbottom, A. W.
Shield, George William


Freeman, Peter
Longden, F.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shillaker, J. F.


Gibbins, Joseph
Lunn, William
Simmons, C. J.


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Sinkinson, George


Gill, T. H.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sitch, Charles H.


Glassey, A. E.
McElwee, A.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Gossling, A. G.
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Gould, F.
McShane, John James
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Granville, E.
Mansfield, W.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Gray, Milner
Marley, J.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Marshall, F.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Mathers, George
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Groves, Thomas E.
Messer, Fred
Sorensen, R.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Middleton, G.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Mills, J. E.
Stephen, Campbell


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Milner, Major J.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Montague, Frederick
Strauss, G. R.


Haycock, A. W.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Hayday, Arthur
Morley, Ralph
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Hayes, John Henry
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Tinker, John Joseph


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Mart, D. L.
Tout, W. J.


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Moses, J. J. H.
Townend, A. E.


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Vaughan, D. J.


Herriotts, J.
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Wallace, H. W.


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Muff, G.
Watkins, F. C.


Hollins, A.
Murnin, Hugh
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hopkin, Daniel
Nathan, Major H. L.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Horrabin, J. F.
Noel Baker, P. J.
Wellock, Wilfred


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Oldfield, J. R.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Isaacs, George
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Westwood, Joseph


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
White, H. G.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Palin, John Henry.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Palmer, E. T.
Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Kelly, W. T.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Kennedy, Thomas
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Kinley, J.
Price, M. P.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Kirkwood, D.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Lathan, G.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson



Law, Albert (Bolton)
Raynes, W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Law, A. (Rosendale)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Paling.


Lawrence, Susan
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)



Question, "That those words, as amended, be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Sir D. HERBERT: I beg to move, in page 16, line 23, to leave out from the word "with" to the word "shall" in line 25 and to insert instead thereof the words:
the body of persons in question jointly and severally.
Owing to the sweet reasonableness of the Financial Secretary, my task in moving this Amendment will not be such a difficult one, because I understand he is prepared to meet me again, if not to accept the Amendment in the exact words in consequence of the Amendments which have been made in the earlier part of the Clause. In order to introduce it to the Committee, I will just state the intention of my Amendment with which I understand, the Financial Secretary agrees. Sub-section 4 of Clause 18 provides that where the notices, served under this
Clause are not complied with, certain heavy penalties are to be inflicted and where the notice served under this Clause is not complied with the clerk or secretary of the body in question, or if there is no clerk or secretary, the person who performs the duties of clerk or secretary, shall be subject to very heavy penalties. There has been some careless drafting. If the clerk or secretary is subject to a penalty, why not the principal? We should not wish to inflict a penalty upon a wretched employé and not upon the principal, and the Amendment is to leave out the words
the clerk or secretary of the body in question, or, if there is no clerk or secretary, the person who performs the duties of clerk or secretary
and to insert instead words which would include the principal interested in the
corporate body or whatever it was, corporate or not.—[Interruption]. One would almost think that this was a matter upon which the rank and file of the party opposite could take the interest which we take in the Finance Bills brought forward by our Chancellors of the Exchequer, and that this was an occasion when Members of the Socialist party and those who call themselves representatives of Labour would for once have stood up for the employed class, and have seen that a penalty should be borne by the employer and not by the unfortunate employé who is simply acting under his master's orders. After the Financial Secretary has stated his case, I should be prepared to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment provided that the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman proposes to move in its place appears to be satisfactory.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is willing to accept the substance of this Amendment, but, as the hon. Gentleman who has moved it has already told the Committee, owing partly to the form of words which have been accepted, not exactly in the form in which he has moved it. The actual form will therefore be slightly different, but I am sure that it will commend itself both to him and to the members of the Committee. I think the best thing to do is to read out the Clause as it would read if the Amendment and the consequential Amendments were adopted. The principal point is to leave out the words "clerk or secretary" and to leave "the body in question" as the one that bears the burden. It would read as follows:
Where a notice served under this section is not complied with, the body in question shall, unless it is proved that it was not reasonably possible to comply with the notice, be liable to a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds, and if after judgment has been given for that penalty the copy still remaining undelivered shall be liable to a further penalty of fifty pounds for every day during which the, default continues.
No words have really been altered in the Sub-section except those necessary to bring about the change.

Sir D. HERBERT: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me whether he is not getting far beyond my Amendment?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: No.

Sir D. HERBERT: Yes, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I shall be quite prepared to agree with the active portion of it in the first two lines, but I cannot for the moment say that I could stand by the rest of the Clause.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I do not know whether there are any Amendments on the paper that cover this, but I read the Amendment which corresponds to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman and such consequential Amendments required to change "he" into "they" etc.

Sir D. HERBERT: It may be that we want a little guidance from you, Mr. Young, if we are making a sort of bargain across the floor of the House to deal in a friendly spirit and to meet on a point in this Clause. The point which now arises is this: there are certain penalties. I will not go into the merits of the case, but I am not quite satisfied with what the hon. Gentleman is proposing. The latter part of this Clause proposes certain penalties. The hon. Gentleman tells us that he is not attempting to alter in any way the latter part of this Subsection. But there are Amendments at any rate down on the paper—of course we are in your hands Mr. Chairman—there are several Amendments down on the Paper. [Interruption]——

The CHAIRMAN: If hon. Members have no regard to the speaker, they may have some regard for the Chairman.

Sir D. HERBERT: I was going to say that we are in your hands as to what Amendments are called. The hon. Gentleman has proposed, not intentionally—but he appears to have asked us to consent to this Sub-section in the form in which he has read it. That involves our consenting to its remaining in its present state in regard to penalties. There are several Amendments down on the paper in regard to penalties, and, if I may respectfully say so, in all probability one Clause at any rate dealing in some way with the question of penalty will be called so as to allow a discussion on that point. So far as I am concerned, while I quite agree with the first part of the Clause, I cannot agree necessarily to the whole of the Sub-section as the Hon. Gentleman has read it. Perhaps it may be convenient if the hon. Gentleman, or
yourself, Sir, would now read to the Committee the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman proposes to move.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I propose, if the hon. Member withdraws his Amendment, to move, in line 23 to omit the words "clerk or secretary of"; and, later, to move as consequential Amendments, to leave out from the word "question," in line 23, to the word "shall," in line 25; to leave out from the word "unless," in line 25, to the word "with," in line 27, and to insert instead thereof the words "it is proved that it was not reasonably possible to comply"; in line 29 to leave out the words "against him"; and in line 30, to leave out the word "he." The actual Amendment which I am proposing to move now is to omit the words "clerk or secretary of."

Sir K. WOOD: I do not think anyone in the Committee will object for a moment to the alteration which the Financial Secretary has just made.

The CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Gentleman leave it to me, please? I want to ask if the hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) is withdrawing his Amendment?

Sir D. HERBERT: On the understanding that there is so much discussion as is necessary to clarify the position on the Amendment that the hon. Gentleman is now proposing, I may withdraw my Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: I think I shall help the Committee if I suggest that I should accept the Amendments with the safeguard that the hon. Member may move his Amendment. If that will suit the hon. Gentleman, I think we can get on.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not certain if the hon. Gentleman really realises what is suggested. There is raised the question as to the amount of the fine to be imposed.

The CHAIRMAN: I was indicating the Amendment that I intended to call.

Sir K. WOOD: I was venturing to express the opinion to the Committee that I think the change which my hon. Friend has suggested is very valuable. If anyone
looks at it for a moment, he will see the serious position in which various clerks and secretaries would be put according to the intention of the Government. How it is possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring forward a Clause which would have put the whole of the penalty for default, not upon the company or a municipal corporation, but upon some clerk or secretary and leave him to bear the burden of the penalty is certainly a matter I do not understand and one upon which the Financial Secretary might have had something more to say. If a Conservative Government had brought forward such a proposal of allowing a company or municipal corporation to escape, hon. Gentlemen opposite would have been unceasingly reviling the Government. It is a most extraordinary instance of the mentality of this Government that either through oversight or design—I presume the former—that they should have brought such a proposal. The Labour Government who talked so much and did so little have seized upon the clerk or secretary as the individual who is to bear the penalty. It is no good hon. Gentlemen muttering in different parts of the House unless it means dissent and dissatisfaction with their own Government, because this is a proposal which no one can really countenance for a moment. Even with this alteration, it does, as the Clause is now drafted, inflict a very severe penalty of £50 for every day, which is now to be shifted from the clerk or the secretary on to the body—the municipality, corporation or company. There is no mitigation, although it is true that the alteration is an improvement, because it puts the penalty on the wrongdoer. But, even so, it is an extraordinary penalty to put on a company or a corporation. I think, really, the best course would be to postpone this Clause so that the Financial Secretary, in conjunction with the Attorney-General, can see if it can be re-drafted.

Major G. DAVIES: It is always difficult for the Committee to follow the proceedings when we get into the labyrinth of manuscript Amendments.

Captain GUNSTON: On a point of Order. Are we discussing the Amendment of the Financial Secretary?

The CHAIRMAN: There is no point of Order. We are discussing the Amendment on the Paper.

Major DAVIES: That proves conclusively what I was saying, that it is confusing to know what we are discussing when we get into the realm of manuscript Amendments. The intention of both the Amendments is similar, and I quite agree that we should congratulate the Government on appreciating the importance of the matter brought to the attention of the Committee by the hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert). It is clear that, as the Clause was drafted, we were going to do a distinct injustice to employes carrying out instructions when the responsibility should obviously fall on those who gave the instructions. It is perfectly clear that the provision, as it stands, is one that this Committee would not be justified in approving. When we begin to wend our way towards the exit from this labyrinth of Amendments, I trust that it will be clear that the aim of the Commissioners in getting this information, if frustrated by any public corporation—I distrust the word "body" which sounds like graded products in Birmingham—will be stated as satisfactorily to the hon. Member for Watford as if his original words had been accepted.

Commander SOUTHBY: As I understand the Financial Secretary's Amendment——

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Am I entitled to ask whether the hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) withdraws his Amendment?

The CHAIRMAN: There is no point of Order. I have indicated that the Amendment has not been withdrawn.

Sir D. HERBERT: The Financial Secretary knows that I cannot withdraw my Amendment, but can only ask leave to withdraw it. Another hon. Member has risen to speak.

Commander SOUTHBY: As I understand the Financial Secretary's Amendment—[Interruption].

The CHAIRMAN: The Financial Secretary has not, up to the moment, moved any Amendment.

Commander SOUTHBY: It is difficult to follow what will be put in the place of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert), and, before he asks leave to withdraw, might
we not get a more clear knowledge of what the Financial Secretary is going to put in its place? It seems to me that the word "proved" is left in the air. To whose satisfaction will it be proved—to the Commissioners' or to the court's? The position is very muddled, and we are, in a way, discussing an Amendment that is not actually before the Committee but has been put forward by the Financial Secretary. I would like to know whether the words, as he read them out, are going to be further elaborated by him when the hon. Member for Watford has withdrawn his Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

Sir D. HERBERT: Will it not be necessary to preserve the first Amendment by the Financial Secretary?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Watford has not withdrawn his Amendment. I am taking no notice of the Financial Secretary's Amendment.

Sir D. HERBERT: I am very sorry. I am trying to meet the convenience of the Committee. [Interruption.] I thought the best way was to have it negatived, but, if the Committee will allow me, I will withdraw my Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: Is it the pleasure of the Committee that the Amendment be withdrawn. [HON. MEMBERS: No.]

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: May I put this point? In order to safeguard a further Amendment I have handed in, would you only put a certain number of words? So far as the words "clerk or secretary" are concerned, both Amendments are on all fours, and I suggest that the question should be put concerning them.

Question, "That the words 'the clerk or secretary of' stand part of the Clause", put, and negatived.

Further Amendment made: In page 16, line 23, leave out from the word "question" to the word "shall" in line 25.—[Mr. Pethick-Lawrence.]

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 16, line 25, to leave out from the word "unless" to the word "with", in line 27, and to insert instead thereof the words "it is proved that it was not reasonably possible to comply."

Sir D. HERBERT: Would it not be better to make it read "proved to the satisfaction of the court" in order to make it clearer to the laymen, although I doubt whether it makes any difference to mention the court. Perhaps the Attorney-General would give an opinion?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: My opinion is that it would not make any difference to the Clause. I have not considered it, but that is my opinion.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Sir D. HERBERT: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "proved", to insert the words "to the satisfaction of the court."
These words cannot do any harm and they make a difference when a layman comes to read the Clause.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am willing to accept the Amendment to the Amendment.

Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I beg to move in page 16, line 29, to leave out the words "against him."

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As this is a consequential Amendment could it not be kept until later so that we can deal with an Amendment relating to penalties?

The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment which I shall accept will be in line 30.

Captain CAZALET: Can we have the Clause read?

The CHAIRMAN: We cannot do that.

Mr. OLIVER STANLEY: Would it not be much more convenient to raise the point of penalties where it first occurs—on the first offence?

The CHAIRMAN: I propose to allow it to be raised on the second offence.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 16, line 30, leave out the word "he."—[Mr. Pethick-Lawrence.]

Sir D. HERBERT: I beg to move in page 16, line 30, to leave out the words "of fifty" and to insert instead thereof the words "not exceeding five."
This is the Amendment on which we can raise the question of penalties. This is a penalty of £50 a day which follows on the original penalty of not exceeding £50 when the offence is first proved and punished. We cannot, of course, discuss that first penalty of £50, except in so far as it bears on the second penalty. It will be clear that there has been some kind of error in drafting. The original penalty is a sum about which there is a discretion. It is not exceeding £50; yet, if there is a day's delay after that, there is this penalty of £50 without any discretion. There may be cases where the magistrates consider that the offence should not be met with a heavy penalty and may wish to inflict a nominal fine of £1, but if there is a day's delay, the offender at once becomes liable to a further fine of £50. It seems obviously a matter of drafting which requires attention. Personally, I am inclined to think that the £50 as the original penalty is heavy, but I will not go into that now. But there is all the more reason for there being a discretion to make the penalty for a subsequent default somewhat more reasonable. Therefore, my suggestion is that if up to £50 is the penalty for the original default, the subsequent penalty of £50 a day should be reduced to a penalty of not exceeding £5 a day.
May I, by way of comparison, refer to a penalty in an Act passed only last year, the Companies Act, 1929? There is a Section there which bears some kind of similarity to this Clause, the Section which obliges a company to keep a register of its shareholders. There is Section 98 which makes it necessary for every company which is a company under the Act to keep a proper register of members which is to be open to inspection, and also the company is bound to provide copies of certain parts of the register if they are required. You have the same thing here. Here you have a Clause which provides, at any rate, for copies being supplied of certain parts of the register, and you have penalties for
default. Now you have got penalties in the Companies Act. You have got in the Companies Act provisions for copies of the register or parts being supplied, and the penalties if it is not done. It is, therefore, material to see what those particular penalties are. If any inspection required under the Section is refused, or if any copy required is not sent within the proper period, the company which is in default is liable in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding £2, and for further default not exceeding £2. That seems to me much more reasonable. For the moment we have passed the original penalty which may be £50, and I suggest that the subsequent daily penalty for continued default might well be put at a sum not exceeding £5 so that the magistrate could have discretion to make it as much less as he thought the circumstances deserved.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment in the form in which the hon. Gentleman has moved it, but I am prepared to accept an Amendment which will remove the difficulty that he has pointed out, that the original penalty might be less than £50, while, as the Clause stands, the recurring penalty would be £50 and not less. There is a Section in the Finance Act, 1927, and the words in the Clause here follow the words of that Section except in one respect, and if hon. Members will look at the words of Sub-section (4) they will see that they say
be liable to a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds, and if after judgment has been given against him for that penalty, the copy still remains undelivered, he shall be liable to a further penalty of fifty pounds for every day during which the default continues".
Section 44 of the Finance Act, 1927, reads like this. It follows exactly the words of this Sub-section except
after judgment has been given for that penalty, to a further penalty of the like amount
instead of the £50 as in the Bill for every day during which the default continues. I will be prepared to alter Subsection (4) to make it conform to the words of Section 44 of the Finance Act, 1927.

The CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, but several Amendments have been made which alter that.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Would it not be simpler for the right hon. Gentleman to
say what he would do, and there would be a later opportunity of inserting it according to his wishes.

Mr. SNOWDEN: What I want to do is to alter the words from a further penalty of £50 to a further penalty of a like amount.

5 a.m.

Sir K. WOOD: I doubt whether that is a very satisfactory proposal. I should have thought that you ought on the second occasion to have given the Court the same latitude which you gave it on the first occasion. Why should not you, so far as the further penalty is concerned, say "not exceeding" a certain sum. That gives the Court an opportunity to take into account any extenuating circumstances that there may be. If you adopt the precedent of a "like amount," you are making the Court a sort of registering machine so far as the penalty is concerned. I suggest that it would be better to give the Court discretion in the second case as in the first.

Sir W. BRASS: I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if I am right in assuming that if a penalty of £30 is made in the original case—and this Amendment is not accepted—the amount of the penalty per day is £30? The maximum in each case can be £50, or £30, or £20, as the Court may decide. Really, these penalties are too high. It very much better to accept the Amendment. We are trying to prevent people from defrauding the Commissioners of Income Tax. The company is the innocent person. It is merely the instrument through which the Commissioners of Income Tax are trying to find out something. It is unfair to bring forward these heavy penalties upon these companies. The words at the beginning of line 13 require that this information should be delivered within a "specified time." It does not say what the specified time is, but later on it states the penalty for the copy still remaining undelivered.
What is to happen if this copy gets lost in the post? Is this copy to be sent by hand to the Commissioners? If the copy is delayed in the post, the unfortunate company which is being merely asked for information by the Commissioners is going to be fined anything up to £50 a day. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer studies the matter more
carefully he will come to the conclusion that this is rather too severe a penalty, and that it would be better to accept the Amendment.

Captain CAZALET: I do not understand the phraseology.
unless he proves that it was not reasonably possible for him to secure compliance.
Does that apply to the second case as well? It may be that a case is decided in London and the company is in Scotland. It may be four or five days before the fine is paid. I presume the fine would not be increased if there was reasonable excuse for the copies not being developed within the statutory time. I wish to ask if that is understood and accepted.

Sir D. HERBERT: The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman meets my view to a great extent, but I pointed out that I thought that the penalty "not exceeding £50" was rather high. The penalties under the Companies Act for very similar offences are very much less. He refers us to the Finance Act, 1927. The offences under that Act are not comparable to the offences we are dealing with now. The offences under the 1927 Act are the offences of a contumaceous taxpayer. These are only offences due to negligence or over-work of office staff. I respectfully suggest to the Committee that if we accept the right hon. Gentleman's proposal we should leave the matter open for further discussion as to the amount of penalties when the Report stage is reached.

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: In an answer, the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated what he meant by the further penalty being the same as that for the first offence. But when the second offence comes for trial it is really a new offence. There should be complete discretion for the court to deal with the offence on its merits. It might easily be the case that the first offence was a gross and bad offence—an absolute refusal on the part of the company to provide the information. The second offence might be the merest negligence of an over-worked staff. On the other hand, it might be that the first refusal was very trivial and venial and might be met by a penalty of £2 or £3. But the persistent refusal to produce the document might be a very bad offence,
savouring of contempt or of wilful resistance to the Treasury. So I do urge that when these second or further offences are being considered, the Court should have as unfettered a voice as it can.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: May I ask your guidance, Mr. Young, on a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert)?

An HON. MEMBER: Wake up that Member beside you.

The CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members are going to sleep on both sides of the Committee.

Major COLFOX: Is it in order for Members to lie at full length on the benches, and does it add to the dignity and efficiency of the Committee? I can see no fewer than four members lying at full length, sound asleep.

The CHAIRMAN: Two of the hon. Members referred to are outside the House, being under the Gallery.

Major COLFOX: There is one over there.

The CHAIRMAN: There are two hon. Members on this side who are both out of order, and they will kindly sit up. Will Members kindly refrain from lying on the seat?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: My hon. Friend the Member for Watford said that he had very largely been met by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the proposal to insert the words "a further penalty of the like amount." I wish to ask for your guidance, Mr. Young, whether, if this be accepted now, we retain the opportunity on the Report stage of dealing not only with the question of the magnitude of the penalty as a whole, but with the question of the first offence and the later offence of the copies still remaining undelivered? It may shorten our proceedings, because it is quite clear that the two are separate points. The first, under your selection we are not allowed to deal with at the moment, but we may, upon the Report stage. On the other hand, that being so, on this side of the Committee we do not wish to deprive ourselves of the possibility of dealing with it on the Report stage, having signed away our freedom.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think you will have signed away your freedom by
any Amendments that have been accepted, but I cannot say what Amendments may be called.

Sir D. HERBERT: We do not want the right hon. Gentleman to complain if we raise the question again on the Report stage.

Captain CROOKSHANK: If an offence takes place, there is a penalty, and then there is a further penalty after the judgment if the documents remain undelivered. But there might be very good reasons. There are not only the postal reasons, but something might happen to the company. It is not certain at all. It might not be possible, for reasons outside control, for the company to comply just at that particular moment, and yet they are said to be contumacious. They may not be at all. I think the Committee would be much better advised to have a £5 maximum.

Mr. CHURCHILL: This matter of penalties is very characteristic of Socialist government in every country. First they provide a great number of new offences. Here is an offence taking a whole Clause to describe it, which, before this Finance Bill, had no existence. Now we have been all this time discussing how the penalty is to be inflicted.

Mr. FRANK SMITH: Cannot we have a penalty for obstruction?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is a very unparliamentary interruption.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman should not make remarks of that sort.

An HON. MEMBER: He only asked a question.

The CHAIRMAN: There was an inference in the question. [Interruption.] Questions can be asked in an unparliamentary way; hon. Members ought not to ask questions in that way. It is out of order to impute motives.

Mr. BECKETT: I would like to ask if accusations of the sort were not often thrown when the other people were on this side?

Major COLFOX: Is it in Order to say in a loud voice that something that may be said is "Nonsense!"?

The CHAIRMAN: If done in a Parliamentary way it is not regarded as out of Order in the House.

Mr. CHURCHILL: What has just occurred illustrates very forcibly the evils of these protracted sittings. All tempers tend to be frayed, unparliamentary expressions are flung across the House, and no one can suggest that all the blame is on one side. It is perfectly clear that we have now reached the point where feelings are liable to excitement, and arouse——

Mr. BECKETT: On a point of Order. May I ask whether we are now discussing the feelings of the Committee or an Amendment?

Mr. CHURCHILL: On that point of Order. Might I say that, as you have no doubt inferred, I had intended immediately, in almost the next sentence, to move to report Progress.

The CHAIRMAN: I did expect that the right hon. Gentleman was going to move to report Progress.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Further to that point of Order. Is it not customary for hon. Members to move to report Progress first, and then make their speeches?

The CHAIRMAN: I have seen it done both ways.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I have thus put myself in order. Now, I want to say a serious word to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He invited me to raise this matter again at an earlier period. Let me point out to him where we now stand. We have not yet finished Clause 18, and there are still three important Amendments, one in the name of Members of the Liberal party. Then there is the debate on the Clause itself. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that we are to pass nine more Clauses. What is the use of talking like that? It is perfectly absurd. Each of these Clauses would give occasion for at least four or five divisions, and five nines are 45. It might well be that there would be further troubles in between, but 45 divisions alone would take nearly eight hours without another word being spoken in debate. Even if we simply divide upon the Amendments and the Clauses now
before us, we shall be proceeding at half-past one o'clock. So far as we are concerned, we have no intention of being converted into mere automatons, tramping through the Division Lobbies in resistance to the Government. We have every intention of combating their policy not only by our votes but by discussion. Is not the Chancellor of the Exchequer making a great mistake by forcing us to continue at these labours when there is not the slightest chance of his getting even one-third of the way he proposes to go? The only possible consequence can be that the new day which has now dawned, and whose light will soon replace the artificial light from above, will be killed.

Mr. LOGAN: Why do you not go home and have a sleep?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I was the subject of reproach for having gone home last time, and, indeed, it was almost the only joke the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made—almost the only time that we saw the slightest relaxation of his countenance. I would love to go home, but I cannot expose myself to such taunts and mockeries, and, therefore, I am bound to stay here. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer can set us all at liberty. He will remember the story of the Sibylline Books, and this is the third time we come back offering our books. We offer him the whole of Clause 18 by half-past seven o'clock if he is willing to report Progress then. It may be the last time that this offer will be made, because in these all-night sittings there are two critical periods. The first is at half-past 12, when the last train leaves for the West End. The second critical period is about seven o'clock, when the first reinforcements begin to arrive with the morning light and relieve those who have borne the vigil of the night. We are at present between those two periods, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer tarries much longer I shall not be able to repeat my offer.

Mr. F. SMITH: We do not want your offers.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The responsibility rests with those who reject the offers. But, anyway, why should the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. F. Smith) take
the words out of the mouth of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and say the "No" which the right hon. Gentleman is longing to say himself? It is almost his only pleasure, to say "No." He is, in fact, a walking body of negation and now, when he has been kept up all night and rendered totally unfit for the Cabinet meeting, the hon. Member for Nuneaton wishes to rob him of his only consolation. I will now give the Chancellor of the Exchequer an opportunity to reply.

The CHAIRMAN: proceeded to put the Question.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Are we not to have any answer?—[Interruption].

The CHAIRMAN: A question has been put to me, and I must be allowed to answer. I cannot make the Chancellor of the Exchequer reply. I rose to put the Question.

Mr. CHURCHILL: On a point of Order. I am quite sure that you would wish to treat with your usual scrupulous fairness Members of the Opposition in this Debate. Out of courtesy I interrupted my remarks to allow the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say whether he would accept the Motion to report Progress or not. Surely, it is without precedent for the Government to make no reply to such a motion, be it only by a grunt.
I sat down to allow the right hon. Gentleman to reply, and almost before a second passed I realised he was not going to reply. My right hon. Friend rose to continue the discussion and it would be very hard if because of the Chancellor's action in not rising to say whether he would accept this Motion or not, we should be deprived of our right to state our case for ten minutes or so. I submit that we should be allowed to do so all the more as no answer has been made from the Government Benches.

The CHAIRMAN: As I was proceeding to put the Question nobody was on his feet. I was putting the Question, and the right hon. Gentleman rose at the same time.

Sir K. WOOD: I join in making one further appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at any rate, to have the courtesy to reply to the question put to him. The matter rests with the Govern-
ment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is in charge of these proceedings, questions have been put to him and a proposition has been made to him, and the very least courtesy he could have shown at this time in this debate would have been to rise and say whether he would accept the Motion which my right hon. Friend made. It is true we have reached Clause 18. My right hon. Friend made him a generous offer. He suggested we should complete Clause 18 by six o'clock. The Committee showed audibly that to the great majority that was a good proposal. There have already been four Amendments forced upon the Government, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself delayed proceedings for two hours by refusing to produce a Treasury Minute, while the Financial Secretary to the Treasury also delayed proceedings by an hour. In considering this Motion, therefore, we must remember that both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary have themselves considerably delayed proceedings. We might have finished Clause 18 by now had it not been for the action of the two representatives of the Government. I omit the Attorney-General, because I feel that if he had been conducting this Bill we should have had a very different Bill. Nothing could have been more surprising to him than Clause 18 when he read it for the first time this afternoon. Let me make one further appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. There may be other Members of the House here shortly. Naturally we do not wish to disappoint them. I can understand that if hon. Members arrive here about half-past seven, having had breakfast and having had a good rest, it will be difficult to say when we shall finish Clause 18. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to reply, and then let us get on with our business. I suggest that, in view of the heavy burdens upon us and in his own interest.

Sir W. BRASS: I support this Motion on the ground that there has been no delay at all on this Clause. If the right hon. Gentleman and the Financial Secretary will read their Clause as drafted, and as now amended, they will find that it is almost a different Clause. There has been no obstruction, and the time expended on it was perfectly justifiable. We have spent a great deal of time and not finished the Clause, which is a very serious and important one. The time has come when we should report Progress. I do think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been treating the Committee with considerable contempt in sitting there and not answering my right hon. Friend. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is in charge of the Bill, should certainly indicate what he proposes to do.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN rose in his place, and claimed to move: "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Mr. CHURCHILL: (seated and covered)
May I, as a point of Order, point out to you, Mr. Young, that when you allowed the Motion to report Progress to be debated, to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made no answer, I said that it was not our intention to prolong the debate in any way. May I assure you that in pursuance of that undertaking I would suggest to my hon. Friends that at a quarter to six o'clock we should allow the debate to come to a close and take the Division upon the Motion. Therefore the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by moving the Closure, is only prolonging the discussion.

The CHAIRMAN: That is not the point of Order. [Interruption.] Will the hon. Member who is whistling kindly stop.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 188; Noes, 67.

Division No. 363.]
AYES.
[15.42 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Bellamy, Albert
Brown, Ernest (Leith)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Benson, G.
Buchanan, G.


Alpass, J. H.
Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Burgess, F. G.


Ammon, Charles George
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Caine, Derwent Hall-


Arnott, John
Bowen, J. W.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)


Aske, Sir Robert
Broad, Francis Alfred
Charleton, H. C.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Brockway, A. Fenner
Church, Major A. G.


Barnes, Alfred John
Brothers, M.
Clarke, J. S.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Cluse, W. S.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lawrence, Susan
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Compton, Joseph
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Cove, William G.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Ritson, J.


Daggar, George
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Romeril, H. G.


Dallas, George
Lees, J.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Dalton, Hugh
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Rowson, Guy


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lindley, Fred W.
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Dukes, C.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sanders, W. S.


Ede, James Chuter
Logan, David Gilbert
Sawyer, G. F.


Edmunds, J. E.
Longbottom, A. W.
Scurr, John


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Longden, F.
Shield, George William


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shillaker, J. F.


Egan, W. H.
Lunn, William
Simmons, C. J.


Freeman, Peter
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Sinkinson, George


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sitch, Charles H.


Gibbins, Joseph
McElwee, A.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Gill, T. H.
McShane, John James
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Glassey, A. E.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Gossling, A. G.
Mansfield, W.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Gould, F.
Marley, J.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Marshall, F.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Granville, E.
Mathers, George
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Gray, Milner
Messer, Fred
Sorensen, R.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Middleton, G.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Mills, J. E.
Stephen, Campbell


Groves, Thomas E.
Milner, Major J.
Strauss, G. R.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Montague, Frederick
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morley, Ralph
Tinker, John Joseph


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Tout, W. J.


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Mort, D. L.
Townend, A. E.


Haycock, A. W.
Moses, J. J. H.
Vaughan, D. J.


Hayday, Arthur
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Wallace, H. W.


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Watkins, F. C.


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Muff, G.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).


Herriotts, J.
Murnin, Hugh
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hirst, G. H. (York W. B. Wentworth)
Nathan, Major H. L.
Wellock, Wilfred


Hollins, A.
Noel Baker, P. J.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Hopkin, Daniel
Oldfield, J. R.
Westwood, Joseph


Horrabin, J. F.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
White, H. G.


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Isaacs, George
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Palin, John Henry
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Paling, Wilfrid
Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Palmer, E. T.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Kelly, W. T.
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Kennedy, Thomas
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Kinley, J.
Potts, John S.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Kirkwood, D.
Price, M. P.



Lathan, G.
Quibell, D. J. K.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Mr. Hayes and Mr. T. Henderson.


Law, A. (Rossendale)
Raynes, W. R.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Beaumont, M. W.
Hartington, Marquess of
Salmon, Major I.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Brass, Captain Sir William
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Briscoe, Richard George
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smithers, Waldron


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Long, Major Eric
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Colville, Major D. J.
Lymington, Viscount
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Dawson, Sir Philip
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Wells, Sydney R.


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Muirhead, A. J.
Womersley, W. J.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Elliot, Major Walter E.
O'Connor, T. J.



Ganzoni, Sir John
Penny, Sir George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Captain Sir George Bowyer and


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Ramsbotham, H.
Captain Lord Stanley.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ross, Major Ronald D.

Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 68; Noes, 187.

Division No. 364.]
AYES.
[5.51 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Beaumont, M. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Salmon, Major I.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Hartington, Marquess of
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Brass, Captain Sir William
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Briscoe, Richard George
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Smithers, Waldron


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Long, Major Eric
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Colville, Major D. J.
Lymington, Viscount
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wells, Sydney R.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Muirhead, A. J.
Womersley, W. J.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Elliot, Major Walter E.
O'Connor, T. J.



Ganzoni, Sir John
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Ramsbotham, H.
Sir George Penny and Sir Victor


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Ross, Major Ronald D.
Warrender.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Gray, Milner
McShane, John James


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Alpass, J. H.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Mansfield, W.


Ammon, Charles George
Groves, Thomas E.
Marley, J.


Arnott, John
Grundy, Thomas W.
Marshall, F.


Aske, Sir Robert
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Mathers, George


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Messer, Fred


Barnes, Alfred John
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Middleton, G.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Mills, J. E.


Bellamy, Albert
Haycock, A. W.
Milner, Major J.


Benson, G.
Hayday, Arthur
Montague, Frederick


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Morley, Ralph


Bowen, J. W.
Herriotts, J.
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Mort, D. L.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hollins, A.
Moses, J. J. H.


Brothers, M.
Hopkin, Daniel
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Horrabin, J. F.
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Muff, G.


Buchanan, G.
Isaacs, George
Murnin, Hugh


Burgess, F. G.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Caine, Derwent Hall-
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Noel Baker, P. J.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Oldfield, J. R.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Church, Major A. G.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Clarke, J. S.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Palin, John Henry.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Kennedy, Thomas
Paling, Wilfrid


Compton, Joseph
Kinley, J.
Palmer, E. T.


Cove, William G.
Kirkwood, D.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Daggar, George
Lathan, G.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Dallas, George
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Dalton, Hugh
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lawrence, Susan
Potts, John S.


Dukes, C.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Ede, James Chuter
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Edmunds, J. E.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Raynes, W. R.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lees, J.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Ritson, J.


Egan, W. H.
Lindley, Fred W.
Romeril, H. G.


Freeman, Peter
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Logan, David Gilbert
Rowson, Guy


Gibbins, Joseph
Longbottom, A. W.
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Longden, F.
Sanders, W. S.


Gill, T. H.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Sawyer, G. F.


Glassey, A. E.
Lunn, William
Scurr, John


Gossling, A. G.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Shield, George William


Gould, F.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Shillaker, J. F.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McElwee, A.
Simmons, C. J.


Granville, E.
McEntee, V. L.
Sinkinson, George


Sitch, Charles H.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
White, H. G.


Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Tinker, John Joseph
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Tout, W. J.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Townend, A. E.
Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Vaughan, D. J.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Wallace, H. W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Watkins, F. C.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Sorensen, R.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Stamford, Thomas W.
Wellock, Wilfred
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Stephen, Campbell
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)



Strauss, G. R.
Westwood, Joseph
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Hayes and Mr. T. Henderson.

Question again proposed, "That the words 'of fifty' stand part of the Clause."

Mr. SMITHERS: On a point of Order, may I ask, if the Committee are agreeable, whether we might not have the windows opened?

The CHAIRMAN: I will take note of the hon. Member's remark.

Mr. CHURCHILL: On a point of Order, surely the question is revived which was previously under discussion before the Motion to report Progress was moved?

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman rises to continue the discussion?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Certainly. I am under the impression that I was in possession of the Committee, and while I was speaking an hon. Gentleman made an unparliamentary observation.

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman was not speaking to the Amendment. He rose to move to report Progress.

Mr. CHURCHILL: With great respect that is not so. I rose to speak on the Amendment, and then I was interrupted by some remark on which I do not wish to dwell any more. When that happened I felt that the temper of the Committee was getting into such a state that it would be better to report Progress. I availed myself of that technical procedure. I broke off my speech on the Amendment. Such is the plain narrative of the facts as they will undoubtedly appear recorded for ever in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The Chancellor of the Exchequer having been pressed at all our proceedings, and the Motion to report Progress having been negatived, I was entitled to continue my interrupted speech upon the Amendment. If the Committee will re-collect
we were at that moment speaking of these penalties. I said that in every country the Socialist party, almost immediately they obtained power, created a large number of new offences, a long catalogue of offences. This Clause, which we have discussed for so long, invents a new offence not hitherto known to the world—that people are to be subjected to penalties of £50, and then further penalties, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been considering in what way he can lay his penalties, or mitigate them, or make them more severe. Respectable people are to be subjected to these penalties. [Interruption.] Now I am being interrupted. We are not sitting here for our pleasure.

Mr. BECKETT: I would like to put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the interruption was not directed at him, but was our greeting to the change of Chairmen.

Mr. CHURCHILL: A most disrespectful observation about the Chair. The hon. Member said that his interruption was made to greet the change of Chairmen. Unless the hon. Gentleman can offer an explanation to the House, it shows that his remark had an implication that only attaches to it. So that I must draw your attention, Sir, to a reflection that has been made upon your predecessor in the Chair.

Mr. BECKETT: The interruption was because we thought it was quite time that the Chairman of Committees had a rest, because he has been in the Chair a very long time.

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is customary to accept a statement which an hon. Member makes about his own intentions and actions, and therefore I should not press my point of Order any further. It remains to me only to continue my remarks upon the Amendment, and upon this
policy of imposing penalties and creating new crimes. This has been carried to great excess in the United States, and there, as we know, they have a whole list of misdemeanours and offences placed upon the Statute Book of the various States. I have heard it said that there are 13,000 penalties. Laxity in the enforcement of law follows inevitably in its train. That is what you are creating by legislation of this kind, with all sorts of needless offences each involving penalties upon the subject. It is one of the worst features of modern democracy as handled by a Socialist Administration. We are now reaching the full daylight of another day and very soon we shall be in the full scrutiny of the public; and then I hope that we shall not fail to press home upon the Government the vices of this multiplication of petty offences and the attaching to them of objectionable pecuniary fines.

Sir K. WOOD: May I—[Interruption.]

Major COLFOX: Is it within your competence to discover who it is that is constantly whistling and bleating? It is impossible for any Member of this side to present any connected argument.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Whistling and noises of that kind are distinctly out of order and most improper. Will the right hon. Member now resume?

Sir K. WOOD: We are now getting to a very important part of this Clause, and several questions have been put to the Attorney-General following the suggestions that came from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If I may I will recall to the Committee the facts concerning the proposals of the Government as to the first penalty to be imposed. If after judgment has been given against him for that penalty, and he still remains in default, he is liable to a further penalty of £50 for every day in which he remains in default. The Chancellor has suggested that, instead of that further penalty of £50 for every day, a previous Statute should be applied in which there occur the words "of a like penalty". We have been endeavouring to obtain the guidance of the Attorney-General as to which is the better course to adopt. For the first time a new offence is created and new penalties will be inflicted on people who offend against this Clause. Owing
to the fact that the first Amendment has not been called, we have been unable to discuss the particular amount suggested there. Will the Attorney-General advise the Committee whether the suggestion of "a like sum" instead of £50 is an advisable thing for the Committee to do? Obviously, if you have the words "of like amount," you practically leave no discretion to the Court at all. Where the first penalty is made, it gives a discretion to the Court. I suggest that the Attorney-General might perhaps advise the Committee which is the better course to adopt—to substitute a smaller penalty for £50, or, by some means, leave a discretion with the Court. It does appear to me that there should be a discretion with the Court.

Sir D. HERBERT: The words were "not exceeding £5."

Sir K. WOOD: In that event it might possibly be urged that in certain cases where there was a direct affront to the Court, and a refusal by a company to produce the certified copy, £5 was too small a penalty. I am not in favour of this Clause at all, but once we place it on the Statute Book the penalty of £5 in repeated cases is, I think, too small. Therefore, I hope the Attorney-General will tell us what he thinks the better course to take in these circumstances. I think he will agree that we have done valuable work in connection with this Clause, and this will be the fourth time that it has been amended.

Captain CAZALET: If hon. Members opposite had been here some hours ago they would realise that there has been no obstruction on this Clause at all. Every Amendment has been discussed with goodwill on both sides of the Committee, and with the desire to find the best possible way to interpret the wishes of the Government. Some hours ago I asked the Attorney-General for an answer on one or two points. A fine is imposed by a court on a company on a certain date, and, as long as the default continues—that is, until the document which is demanded is forthcoming—a further penalty is inflicted on the company for every day until that document is produced. There may be a variety of legitimate reasons why that document cannot be produced for several days. The point we ask is whether the leniency allowed in the first case is also extended
to the later case. The form may be lost in the post or otherwise delayed, and with the best will in the world it may take three or four days, or even a week, before the actual document arrives in London. What we ask is whether the leniency allowed in the primary cases is also allowed during those days in which the default continues.

Major G. DAVIES: If modern legislation has taught us anything it is the great danger of legislating ahead of public opinion. We have seen that in the case of prohibition legislation in the United States. The people as a whole should feel the same confidence in these matters as they feel in regard to the police force; they should feel that they are fairly treated and not that they are unfairly harried. Those of us who have had an official connection with the collection of taxes realise that, they often bear an unmerited burden of criticism. The career of tax gatherer is anything but one calculated to spread the popularity of the individual earning his living in that career. The reason why we have always been able to collect so cheaply and with so little friction such a large proportion of our revenue from Income Tax is that it was felt that the taxpayer was treated fairly. Under this Clause, however, there is a new burden to be placed upon a certain class of the community. It may be that it is not put upon the direct taxpayer, but it is in connection with a further burden and it is a nuisance arising from a widening of our taxing law. It is going to annoy people and to that extent the Treasury is assuming an additional burden of unpopularity and is running the risk of reaching a point, often reached when tariff laws are too high and smuggling develops, at which intensified taxation develops tax evasion. In this Clause we have provisions of a particularly irritating kind.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This is not a question of tax evasion at all but of disobeying the order of the court.

Major DAVIES: If you had allowed me just the extra quarter of a minute you would have seen how I was linking that up with the remarks I was making. It is intimately connected with the tax laws. We are not only antagonising people by
making a new offence, but the penalty for those who do not carry out the provisions of this particular Clause are in themselves savage—a fine of £50 per diem without any provision for some of those excuses or reasons that may properly be given. In addition to the excessive nature of the punishment for the crime, you are also manufacturing a new and irritating crime which will have a bad effect on the collection of Income Tax. I hope that the Attorney General will give us his views on this matter.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: This really is not a question of constituting any new offence. That, no doubt, is raised by the Clause, but the particular point that we are discussing is what the penalty should be—that and that alone. I propose to address my remarks entirely to that question.
I am asked by the right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) to advise the Committee on their course. I shall give them the same advice as was given by my predecessors in 1922 and 1927, when they were confronted with a precisely similar point. In the former case it was a question of failure to furnish particulars of income, and in the latter of failure to make Surtax returns, and the procedure then adopted was to have the same words exactly that we have in this Clause, "a penalty not exceeding £50," but, instead of "a further penalty of £50," "a further penalty of the like amount." If I am asked to advise the Committee I should advise them to adopt that wording, "a further penalty of the like amount." In many cases £5 might be quite inadequate. You are dealing with something in the nature of contumacy. The first penalty would not be incurred if there was a genuine mistake, and the Committee would be well advised to adopt the Chancellor's suggestion and put in the words "of the like amount."

Sir D. HERBERT: There is a distinction between the cases cited and the present case. In those two cases it was the taxpayer who was concerned; in this case it is not.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Here again we have a case where the Chancellor is departing altogether from the regulations that applied as a whole to the company laws passed by this House. Under the
Companies Acts the penalty for failure to supply a shareholder with an entry similar to this is fixed at £2. There is a great difference between £2 and £50. When you get the question of a recurring amount of £50 a day for the failure of an officer of the company to furnish the necessary particulars, you are going far beyond what you ought to do. I have been struck by the fact that in this Clause introducing this heavy penalty we have not had a word from the Chancellor of the Exchequer either in justification of the Clause or of the heavy penalty. The Chancellor would be well advised to take this Clause back again, to reconsider it, and let us deal with it after we have seen the many manuscript Amendments handed in from the Government side of the House, before we put on the Statute Book a Clause——

Mr. BROCKWAY: On a point of Order. Are the remarks of the hon. Gentleman in order?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I was following the hon. Gentleman who was discussing

cussing the Clause. We must confine ourselves to the point before the Committee.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I was only giving an explanation, because I wanted to point out the heavy penalties inflicted. I submit that there is nothing out of order in that—[Interruption.] I am perfectly satisfied that when the hon. Members who are now protesting go back to their constituencies and consult the people there who have to conduct business, they will find that this is going to be a boomerang which will hit them jolly hard. But I am not worrying about that. I submit that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be a very wise man if he allowed us to finish at this moment and let us reconsider the whole thing.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN rose in his place and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 183; Noes, 68.

Division No. 365.]
AYES
[6.34 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Gill, T. H.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Glassey, A. E.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)


Alpass, J. H.
Gossling, A. G.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Ammon, Charles George
Gould, F.
Lees, J.


Arnott, John
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Aske, Sir Robert
Granville, E.
Lindley, Fred W.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Gray, Milner
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Barnes, Alfred John
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Logan, David Gilbert


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Longbottom, A. W.


Bellamy, Albert
Groves, Thomas E.
Longden, F.


Benson, G.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Lunn, William


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, G. H. Merthyr Tydvil)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Bowen, J. W.
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
McElwee, A.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Haycock, A. W.
McEntee, V. L.


Brothers, M.
Hayday, Arthur
McShane, John James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Hayes, John Henry
Mansfield, W.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Marley, J.


Buchanan, G.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Marshall, F.


Burgess, F. G.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Mathers, George


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Herriotts, J.
Messer, Fred


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Middleton, G.


Church, Major A. G.
Hollins, A.
Mills, J. E.


Clarke, J. S.
Hopkin, Daniel
Milner, Major J.


Cluse, W. S.
Horrabin, J. F.
Montague, Frederick


Cocks, Frederick Seymour.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Compton, Joseph
Isaacs, George
Morley, Ralph


Cove, William G.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Daggar, George
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Mort, D. L.


Dallas, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Moses, J. J. H.


Dalton, Hugh
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Muff, G.


Dukes, C.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Murnin, Hugh


Ede, James Chuter
Kelly, W. T.
Nathan, Major H. L.


Edmunds, J. E.
Kennedy, Thomas
Noel Baker, P. J.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Kinley, J.
Oldfield, J. R.


Egan, W. H.
Kirkwood, D.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Freeman, Peter
Lathan, G.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Gibbins, Joseph
Law, A. (Resendale)
Palin, John Henry


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)
Lawrence, Susan
Paling, Wilfrid


Palmer, E. T.
Simmons, C. J.
Watkins, F. C.


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Sinkinson, George
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Phillips, Dr. Marion
Sitch, Charles H.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Wellock, Wilfred


Potts, John S.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Price, M. P.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Westwood, Joseph


Quibell, D. J. K.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Raynes, W. R.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Ritson, J.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Romeril, H. G.
Sorensen, R.
Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Stamford, Thomas W.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Rowson, Guy
Stephen, Campbell
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Sanders, W. S.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Sawyer, G. F.
Tinker, John Joseph



Scurr, John
Tout, W. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Shield, George William
Townend, A. E.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Vaughan, D. J.
Charles Edwards.


Shillaker, J. F.
Wallace, H. W.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Albery, Irving James
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Salmon, Major I.


Beaumont, M. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Hartington, Marquess of
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Brass, Captain Sir William
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Briscoe, Richard George
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Smithers, Waldron


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Colville, Major D. J.
Long, Major Eric
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lymington, Viscount
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Wells, Sydney R.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Muirhead, A. J.
Womersley, W. J.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Elliot, Major Walter E.
O'Connor, T. J.



Ganzoni, Sir John
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Ramsbotham, H.
Captain Sir George Bowyer and


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Ross, Major Ronald D.
Sir George Penny.

Question put accordingly, "That the words 'of fifty' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 177; Noes, 77.

Division No. 366.]
AYES.
[6.42 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Daggar, George
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Dallas, George
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)


Alpass, J. H.
Dalton, Hugh
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)


Ammon, Charles George
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Herriotts, J.


Arnott, John
Dukes, C.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Ede, James Chuter
Hollins, A.


Barnes, Alfred John
Edmunds, J. E.
Hopkin, Daniel


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Horrabin, J. F.


Bellamy, Albert
Egan, W. H.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Benson, G.
Freeman, Peter
Isaacs, George


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Gibbins, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Bowen, J. W.
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Gill, T. H.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Gossling, A. G.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Brothers, M.
Gould, F.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Kelly, W. T.


Buchanan, G.
Granville, E.
Kennedy, Thomas


Burgess, F. G.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Kinley, J.


Caine, Derwert Hall
Groves, Thomas E.
Kirkwood, D.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Lathan, G.


Charleton, H. C.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Church, Major A. G.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Law, A. (Rosendale)


Clarke, J. S.
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Lawrence, Susan


Cluse, W. S.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Haycock, A. W.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)


Compton, Joseph
Hayday, Arthur
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Cove, William G.
Hayes, John Henry
Lees, J.


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Lindley, Fred W.
Palin, John Henry
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Paling, Wilfrid
Sorensen, R.


Logan, David Gilbert
Palmer, E. T.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Longbottom, A. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Stephen, Campbell


Longden, F.
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Strauss, G. R.


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Lunn, William
Potts, John S.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Price, M. P.
Tinker, John Joseph


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Quibell, D. J. K.
Tout, W. J.


McElwee, A.
Raynes, W. R.
Townend, A. E.


McEntee, V. L.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Vaughan, D. J.


McShane, John James
Ritson, J.
Wallace, H. W.


Mansfield, W.
Romeril, H. G.
Watkins, F. C.


Marley, J.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Marshall, Fred
Rowson, Guy
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Mathers, George
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Wellock, Wilfred


Messer, Fred
Sanders, W. S.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Middleton, G.
Sawyer, G. F.
Westwood, Joseph


Mills, J. E.
Scurr, John
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Milner, Major J.
Shield, George William
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Montague, Frederick
Shiels, Dr, Drummond
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Shillaker, J. F.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Morley, Ralph
Simmons, C. J.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Mort, D. L.
Sinkinson, George
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Moses, J. J. H.
Sitch, Charles H.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Muff, G.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Murnin, Hugh
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Noel Baker, P. J.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)



Oldfield, J. R.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.




Charles Edwards.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Penny, Sir George


Albery, Irving James
Gray, Milner
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Aske, Sir Robert
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Beaumont, M. W.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Ramsbotham, H.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Hartington, Marquess of
Salmon, Major I.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Briscoe, Richard George
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smithers, Waldron


Colfox, Major William Philip
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Colville, Major D. J.
Long, Major Eric
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lymington, Viscount
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Wells, Sydney R.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Womersley, W. J.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Muirhead, A. J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Nathan, Major H. L.



Ganzoni, Sir John
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
O'Connor, T. J.
Captain Lord Stanley and Sir


Glassey, A. E.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Victor Warrender.

Captain CAZALET: On a point of Order. May I ask if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will read the whole of Sub-section (4). I asked some time ago if this could be done, and I was told to ask as soon as this Amendment was over. I think it would be very helpful to the members of the Committee on this side of the House.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is not the business of the Chancellor to read a Clause. Major Nathan.

Mr. CHURCHILL: On a point of Order. May I draw your attention to
the important Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Ramsbotham)—in page 16, line 33, to leave out from the second word "stock" to the end of the Sub-section? Some of us have been waiting a long time for your approval. It was understood that this Amendment was one of those which was going to be taken.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: In the exercise of my powers I must make certain selections, and the particular point raised in this Amendment is one that has
been discussed at considerable length. Therefore, the exercise of my discretion, I did not select it.

Major NATHAN: I beg to move, in page 16, line 36, at the end, to add the words:
(6) A notice shall not be served by the special commissioners under this section unless they have, not less than twenty-eight days before such service, served upon the person to whom such notice relates written notice of their intention so to do, accompanied by a statement, signed by not less than two of the special commissioners, stating that in their belief he has failed, omitted, or neglected to disclose to them material details affecting the extent of his liability to Income Tax or Sur-tax which inspection of the register concerned would reveal and setting out their reasons for holding such belief.
If the person to whom such notice relates shall within the said period of twenty-eight days institute proceedings in the High Court, calling upon the special commissioners to prove that they have reasonable grounds for believing that he is guilty of such concealment as aforesaid or else to be restrained from the service of such notice, the special commissioners shall not serve the said notice unless and until it has been determined by the order of a judge of the High Court (from which there shall be no appeal) that the special commissioners have reasonable grounds for such belief.
(7) Provision shall be made by rules of court for regulating the procedure under sub-section (6) of this section.
Whatever else may be said about the Clause that we have spent about 10 hours in discussing, at least this may be said, that it is not free from ambiguity, and to that proposition I think I shall obtain the assent of the Committee as a whole. It may be that the Attorney General is correct in the view that he takes that Clause 18 as it stands in the Bill does not refer to a particular person, but to a class of security. I hold myself at liberty to raise the matter, fortified afresh by consideration of the opinions which have been expressed. Upon Report I am sure the Attorney-General will agree that it is a point of substance. I only mention it now for the purpose of reserving my right in regard to it. Whether his interpretation of the Clause be correct or not, the restriction of encroachment by the Executive which this Amendment is designed to effect is equally necessary. Of what is the Amendment the natural corollary? Of the suggestion that the Special Commissioners should have a roving commission, to make a
fishing inquiry into each and every shareholder's affairs amongst every company registered in this country. That is a very wide extension of the powers that have been entrusted to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in the whole course of our legislation. It is tantamount to saying that there will be maintained and created at York House a card index which shall bear, in relation to the taxpayer, very much the same sort of relationship that the finger-print bears to the criminal. They are establishing a file of the finger-prints of taxpayers at York House. The right to take a finger-print from a criminal has been vigorously and strenuously restricted by legislation by this House. The object of this Amendment is to prevent the tyrannical use of the power conferred by the Clause. The Government have not been able to make out anything like an effective case for this Clause. They have not even attempted to do so. All that we have is the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer early in the Debate, and the suggestion was that the object was to check up the returns of Sur-tax. But every Sur-tax payer makes the return under full responsibility of the penalty for perjury, and other liabilities.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Will the Financial Secretary give us a reply?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is entitled to a short rest.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I reserve my right to speak on this matter later.

7.0 a.m.

Major NATHAN: The object of this Amendment is to restrict the possibility of capricious and tyrannical use by officials of the powers reposed in them by this Clause. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that the framework of the Clause is that a notice shall be served by the Special Commissioners on the company, requiring certain returns. In the whole of the Clause there is not one word to say for what purpose that return is required, or in respect of what persons it may be asked for. It is a return that the Special Commissioners are entitled to ask for entirely at large. Were it not that this Clause is included in a part of the Bill headed "Income Tax," there would be no indication as to the object in view. It is a very wide
power. It may certainly cause irretrievable harm to the credit of perfectly innocent full-taxpaying citizens. I am suggesting by this Amendment that the Special Commissioners should give objective evidence of a sense of responsibility by making a statement that they have reason to believe that the taxpayer has failed, omitted, or neglected to disclose material details affecting the extent of his liability to Income Tax or Surtax. I ask the Attorney-General whether the Government, in this Clause, have any object over and above that of ascertaining whether a taxpayer has failed, omitted, or neglected to disclose material details affecting the extent of his liability to Income Tax or Surtax.
If the Government have a further hidden object, let us know what it is. If there is no further object, then this Amendment suggests that it should be stated in terms that that is the object—to ascertain whether a taxpayer has failed, omitted, or neglected to disclose material details affecting the extent of his liability to Income Tax or Surtax—and that it shall not be permissible for the Special Commissioners to enter on these fishing inquiries, or establish their finger-print index, unless they have on their own responsibility made a statement that they have reason to believe that there has been some such omission, and that statement is to be signed by two of the Special Commissioners. That seems to me a safeguard singularly needful for the protection of the taxpayer as against the Revenue. The notice is not to be given to the company in the first instance, but to the person to whom it relates. When that notice has been served, on the responsibility and under the signature of the Special Commissioners personally, the person on whom it is served is to have an opportunity of instituting proceedings in the High Court calling on the Special Commissioners to show that they have reasonable grounds for believing that he is guilty of an offence of omission, failure, or neglect to give particulars required by statute. If the judge should find that there is reasonable ground for that belief on the part of the Special Commissioners, the matter goes forward as in this Bill, and everything will have been done to protect the taxpayer against illegitimate invasions of his private rights. It is obvious that if a taxpayer, having been
served with such a notice, takes no steps, it is a reasonable assumption that there are some grounds for further investigation, which would then proceed as contemplated in the Bill as at present drafted. Without such a provision as this, the taxpayer is exposed to investigations into his private affairs and to a risk to reputation and fame against which it is the duty of the House of Commons to protect him.

Commander SOUTHBY: The Committee will have heard with great interest the clear and reasonable explanation of this Amendment by the hon. and gallant Member. He aptly referred to the finger-print system, and likened this Clause to the adoption of a finger-print system by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his efforts to detect those evading their proper tax. But there is this difference. Only a convicted criminal can have his finger-prints taken, but in this Bill the Chancellor of the Exchequer is bringing a case against the taxpayer behind his back, and making him a convicted criminal without giving him an opportunity of defending himself. I support this Amendment because it is a protection for the taxpayer. It may be that there are a certain number of taxpayers who endeavour to evade their taxation, but that is no reason why the main body of taxpayers should be subjected by Act of Parliament to gross injustice. This very reasonable Amendment affords protection to these people, and I hope the Government will accept it. I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here to hear the very reasonable exposition of the case for the taxpayer, but it must be obvious to the Committee that the strain of this long Session to-night has been very heavy, and doubtless it is necessary for him to take some rest. I am sure the Committee are anxious that the Chancellor should not over tax his strength. We are here as a Committee, not only to frame legislation which is going to protect the Treasury in the collection of taxes, but, at the same time, to do so without introducing a Star Chamber method which is going to press heavily on the British taxpayer. If the protection of the taxpayer can be obtained by inserting a new provision like this, it is the duty of the Committee
to press it on the Government, and it is the duty of the Government, if a reasonable Amendment is put forward, to accept it. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment as it stands, because it does nothing more than put in a reasonable protection for the taxpayer. This whole of Clause 18 is a most monstrous invasion of the rights of the citizen, who is held to be doing something illegal without even proof that he contemplated anything of the kind.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I should like first to refer to what has been said about my right hon. Friend. It is the common practice to recognise that Ministers are not compelled to be here all the time. My right hon. Friend has been exemplary. Of the 14 or 15 hours that we have been discussing the Finance Bill, he has not missed an hour at a time. I am sure hon. Members recognise the right of a Minister in charge to leave a subordinate Minister in charge of a Bill and to repose himself for a short interval. I have listened to everything that fell from the lips of the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) and have studied the text of the Amendment on the Paper, and I am forced to the conclusion that the whole basis on which this Amendment rests is an entire misunderstanding. This talk about finger-prints and dictatorial methods is absolutely remote from the facts of the case. Let us understand what the position is. We have already lists at Somerset House of certain shareholders of certain companies. Those are open to public inspection, and the Special Commissioners of Income Tax deal with them. They instruct people to make lists in order that they may compare them with the Super-tax returns. All that is proposed in this Clause is that they shall be enabled to have similar facilities in regard to other classes of securities not now available to them at Somerset House.

Mr. E. BROWN: But at present the law requires the lists to be placed in Somerset House, while in this case the law requires the copies to be served, and it is giving the Inland Revenue powers they have never had before.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The hon. Member was slightly premature in interrupting, and his interruption is not
justified by the facts. As far as the records at Somerset House are concerned, the staff have power to make excerpts, and they do send people to make excerpts. The object of this is to have the same powers in regard to other classes of securities which are not available at Somerset House. That can be done in two ways. Either other classes of securities must be registered at Somerset House, which is not proposed, or the Special Commissioners must be given power to obtain the information they require from the companies concerned. That is what is proposed in this Clause. If the proposal were that they should simply ask for the list, the whole list, then no misunderstanding from the Liberal party could arise.

Major NATHAN: That would meet my point, although I prefer the method of making all securities registrable, which I think is the correct way of dealing with this matter.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The Special Commissioners do not have the whole list of shareholders; they only have a small proportion which seems likely to be of use to them, and it is proposed that they should have the same kind of inquiry of the companies that they already have with regard to those securities which are set out in full at Somerset House. Instead of taking the whole list, they are empowered by this Clause to take a certain class of shareholders. It will probably be the class of persons holding more than £1,000, or something of that kind. Really this Amendment, which talks about service upon the person to whom such notice relates, has no relation to the facts at all. There is no question whatever of a particular search being made relating to one person and one person alone. It will be generally a special class of person having more than a certain holding in the company. Therefore, the words in the Amendment have no meaning. The fact is that there is no question of an investigation being made about a particular person. The idea is to obtain from the general list a large proportion of a class representing the larger holders, and to use that precisely in the same manner in which the list prepared at Somerset House is used at present. With the greatest wish in the world not to treat
individuals unfairly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer feels compelled to resist this Amendment, because it is not really applicable to the state of affairs contemplated in Clause 18, but to an entirely different state of affairs.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Is this to be the only answer that the Government are going to make to the Amendment and to the speech which the Mover has delivered? Is this halting, pathetic statement which has come from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to be the only apology which the Government can make for refusing this carefully prepared Amendment? For my part I heartily agree with the Amendment, and, on behalf of the Conservative Opposition, I can proffer the Mover our energetic assistance. I think it is an Amendment which does great credit to its authors, and is conceived in the very finest traditions of Liberalism, which for many years played a most important and invaluable part in moulding and shaping the expanding liberties of this country. That the hon. and gallant Member and his learned Friend who is associated with him should have drafted this Amendment and placed it upon the Paper constitutes a service which will be deeply appreciated by all those who wish to see a proper relationship maintained between the dignity of the taxpayer and the tax collector.
In the first place the Government are armed with the proper procedure to detect offenders. Do not let us have any talk in the future about the Government being denied means of dealing with the tax evader. Here is proposed a complete method by which any person who is suspected of not having fully discharged his duty to the Revenue, can be proceeded against, and proceeded against effectively and swiftly, but according to the proper standard and regular traditions of accepted British jurisprudence and British decency and fair-play.
No doubt it will astonish the Financial Secretary even to hear this, because there never was a man so swiftly converted into a bureaucrat than he. He simply flung himself into the surroundings of the Treasury, and emerged after a very brief space of time as one of the most complete, self-satisfied bureaucratic officials that we have ever had representing the Government department of the
Treasury in this House. No doubt it will surprise the hon. Gentleman very much if I should mention some of the principles upon which this Amendment is founded. First of all, there is the suggestion that, if a man as to be proceeded against, there shall at any rate be a prima facie case established, and that this prima facie case shall be established against him by reasonable persons—that two of the Special Commissioners shall make an allegation, and that due notice shall be given to the person affected. What is wrong with that? Has the hon. Gentleman already forgotten those principles which he used to profess in by-gone days about the rights of individuals? Why should a man be placed, without his knowledge, under a slur? If allegations are made against him, he ought to be the first person to be informed, and he ought to have due notice. The Mover of the Amendment proposes that the matter shall be referred to a judge of the High Court; that the person against whom an allegation is preferred, whose affairs are to undergo a new and special subterranean examination not known to the Income Tax law, is to have notice, and, after notice, he is to have the right of rebutting the charge made against him. That is the ordinary, normal procedure of British justice and fair-play.
If he can prove to the satisfaction of the court that there is no prima facie case, or rather, unless the special commissioners are able to prove that they have a prima facie case—the case of a man is not to be rummaged in this way. You would not search a man's house, if you had cause to suspect him, without a warrant. Why treat the whole class of Income Tax payers as if they were criminals?
It has been the one idea of the Socialist Government since they got into power to use that power to hunt and pillage the direct taxpayers of this country. In the whole world there is not a class like the British taxpayer, but if the Government establishes the relationship with them of pitting their brains against the brains of the authorities, it will be a duel instead of a high duty discharged by the taxpayer to render to the State what Parliament has required. If you put it on the footing of a duel, then your devices, dodges and instruments of torture, with which you are
filling this Bill, will not be worth the paper on which they are written. You will alter the whole relationship between the Income-Tax payers and the Exchequer. There was a great speech by Mr. Gladstone in which he said this was purely voluntary. If you lose that confidence and goodwill which still exists between the Government of the day—[Interruption]. If you once lose that, it will be impossible to re-establish it. Taxation has risen to a high point, and now at this moment you inflict this unwarranted slur on the whole of the Income Tax payers under this inquiry.
The hon. Member who moved this Amendment comes here with the means of preventing evasion. But what do the Government care? They will not look at it. All they want is a general power undermining the whole confidential relationship which has hitherto been preserved as far as Income Tax is concerned. The hon. Gentleman said that there would be no procedure against individuals and that therefore this Amendment was not valid. The Attorney-General became almost metaphysical in endeavouring to explain the relationship between the individual and the class. The Attorney-General has explained that classes alone are concerned. That is not what is intended by the Government. What the Government are going to ask for is particular information about certain persons whom they have reason to suspect.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: indicated dissent.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am glad to see they are waking up. There will be a suggestion that this or that wealthy taxpayer is not making a return adequate to the revenues he enjoys. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue will, under the power in this Clause, have a private inquiry and find out what are the securities he holds. I do not complain a bit of that procedure if you inform the man of the charge made against him, if you give him an opportunity to defend himself, and if the matter be adjudicated by an impartial judge.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The right hon. Gentleman has said that what the Government are going to do is to proceed against one or two individuals. That is not correct. It has been distinctly brought out that the Clause does not
enable that to be done. The Chancellor of the Exchequer definitely stated that the procedure which the right hon. Gentleman and the Mover of the Amendment envisaged was not possible under this Clause.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Gentleman has not added to the strength of his position by the interruption, but, however much we may differ from him, the courtesy and good nature we always meet from him is very agreeable. I put to the hon. Gentleman this very plain question: What is there that you legitimately require for the purpose of preventing evasion and securing the necessary information that cannot be given by this Amendment of the hon. Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan)? If that does not give you your powers, what do you want? The House has examined this matter for 10 hours with great attention. Is the hon. Gentleman's desire to have a roving commission given to him to make inquiries here and there under penalties, and so forth? We will give you the powers for which you ask, but in return give to His Majesty's liege, whose affairs you are investigating, the information that his affairs are under special scrutiny, and an opportunity to justify himself if he can. If he fails to take advantage of the 28 days' delay, you are absolutely justified in proceeding and making any inquiries you desire.
This is a procedure which will limit the obligations to those cases to which it relates, instead of making it applicable over the whole area. If this Amendment were adopted, all the objections entertained on the ground of the clerical labour thrust upon the companies and the expenses to which they will be put, or the alternative of the shameful sweating of the poor clerk who is receiving a pitiful remuneration just because his firm is not likely to have voted for the party opposite—all these arguments drop to the ground because the number of cases in which it would be necessary to proceed would not be very numerous. The number of returns which it would be necessary to require would not be very numerous nor the returns very lengthy. They would not be the vague, general, fishing and roaming returns. They would be precise returns prepared and proposed for the purpose
of establishing a definite charge, and there would be neither great difficulty nor expense in the matter.
The right hon. Gentleman has shown quite clearly that it is not evasion of taxes that the Government are seeking to prevent in this Clause. The Opposition and the Liberal Party have given them the fullest means for dealing with the matter. What they want to do is to lay their predatory, inquisitive and prying fingers on the whole distribution of wealth and securities throughout the country, under the cloak, in the first instance, of preventing the evasion of income tax, and ultimately, no doubt, for some sinister purpose.

Mr. E. BROWN: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has spoken of the malignity of the Government. They really suffer from innocence, otherwise they would not have put Clauses into a Finance Bill when their real place was a Revenue Bill. The whole argument of the Government is that the Debate is the result of suspicion. If that be so, it is all the more necessary to remove the suspicion that this Clause is meant to do what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury says it does not and cannot do. There is a difference of opinion about it, and the hon. Gentleman is not the first Financial Secretary to make a statement that has been null and void when it came to a court of law. The electors and taxpayers are getting very suspicious about the forms of words which the ordinary Member of Parliament cannot understand. He has to take things on trust from the Treasury or from legal authorities.
I agree with the hon. Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan). The Government have chosen the wrong method, and is applying the Clause in the wrong way. If they want the information let them take the simple straightforward course of making company securities registerable, as the other classes of shares are, at Somerset House. The Inland Revenue Commissioners and the companies would be under strict secrecy and the taxpayer would have complete security against the invasion of his rights by the authorities. There is growing in the country a great feeling
against these obscure Clauses being brought into Bills and discussed at all-night sittings by a Committee which is either weary or indifferent, and not willing to apply its mind to understand either its learned lawyer's or its intelligent laymen as to what is being done by the Department to the ordinary citizen. The protest is long overdue, and the Committee will remember the hon. Member for North-East Bethnal Green with gratitude for raising the issue.

Lord E. PERCY: This Clause becomes more and more curious, and I want to ask the Committee to consider for a moment what was the argument of the Financial Secretary. In the first place he said this Amendment is wholly unnecessary because it relates to something which cannot be done under the Clause as it stands. The Special Commissioners will have no power and no right to ask for the record of individuals in the books of a company. I am quite sure that this is a great surprise to nearly all the hon. Members who sit behind him. It is quite clear that it is the intention of the Government to get at he wicked, evasive Super-taxpayer. But is the Financial Secretary right? Anyone who reads the Clause can see perfectly well that it is capable of being used by the Special Commissioners to go into an individual's record and the books of a company. It is absurd that this Clause is not capable of being used for the purpose of looking into individual accounts. It becomes curious when the Financial Secretary tells us what the reason for this Clause really is that we are only trying to get out of companies who do not lodge a list of shareholders at Somerset House the same information as we now get from lists open to inspection at Somerset House. That is all we want to do. Then why in this Clause do you take far wider powers than is necessary? If the Special Commissioners want to consult a list of a company lodged at Somerset House, they send their own servants down at their own expense to look at the information. From the moment this Clause is passed, they are going to have power to go to the company and say, "Send your own servant."

Mr. E. BROWN: Under no oath.

Lord E. PERCY: If the Financial Secretary has rightly described the real
object of this Clause, why does he take wider powers than he needs? For that reason I hope the Government will accept a manuscript Amendment which I will hand in which will exempt from this Clause the companies which clearly issue their list of shareholders and which are already open for public inspection. I have shown that this Clause goes far beyond what the Financial Secretary says it does, but also that on the face of this Clause, whether it be the intention of the Government or not, it is quite possible for the Special Commissioners to hunt individuals and get information. If it were not so, the Financial Secretary would not have all the support from behind him. For that reason we must demand the safeguards that are given by this Amendment.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I am not quite sure that this actual Amendment is as perfect as some of my right hon. Friends in front think. But I will come to that presently. In the first place, I would like to say one or two things about the excellent speech which was delivered by my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown). He appeared to think that the Government in all this matter were innocent. I know that my hon. Friend is a very honest man, and he never likes to think nasty things about anyone. But even he, with his extraordinary kindness of character, is apparently beginning to have a gradual suspicion of the Government, and all I can say is that, knowing my hon. Friend the Member for Leith as I do, when once the Government arouses a Westcountryman to get on their tracks I believe they have a very dangerous opponent, and that they will bitterly regret it if they do not accept the Amendment which has been moved.
May I say something about the actual Amendment as, apart from the discussion of the Amendment, the praise of which, I think, has been a little overdone, I think it is a good Amendment, though one of the worst things in it is the provision at the end:
Provision shall be made by rules of court for regulating the procedure under subsection (6) of this section.
I have never been able to understand how these rules of court are made. The Attorney-General has had one or two tries at explaining it; but I do not think
that it was his fault that he cannot explain how these rules of court are made.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL: I have never had to explain the point in this House.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Well, if it was not the Attorney-General, it must have been somebody else. I am almost sure that I have heard him give some account of them.

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

8.0 a.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Of course, I willingly withdraw if I have accused the Attorney-General of doing something he has never done. I would not like to put any money on his opinion of a particular Amendment. As he has not explained the rules of court, of course, he will now be able to do so, and I am so glad that I have been fortunate enough to give him an opportunity of intervening in the debate on this matter. I wish to know precisely how these rules of court are made, who makes them, how they are applied, and what course they actually have, and also, in the event of their being broken, what powers of procedure there are for enforcing them.

Major NATHAN: There is obviously a complete misapprehension in the hon. Member's mind as to what are and what are not rules of court. The arguments he is addressing to the Committee are not relevant to rules of court but to other matters on which he and I probably see eye to eye.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I am sorry that they are not relevant, but I have very great difficulty in finding how they are irrelevant and yet have found their way into this Amendment.

Major NATHAN: I do not desire to stand between the hon. Member and the Attorney-General, but "rules of court" is a perfectly well recognised legal phrase applicable to the procedure of the High Court of Justice, and I understand that the Attorney-General is about to explain the procedure for the making of these rules by a judge of the High Court. My only point is that they are nothing to do with the House of Commons at all.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: These are just the points the House of Commons ought to deal with. I have heard a great deal of
discussion from time to time about these rules of procedure, and every lawyer seems to get more muddled than the last one about them. I have heard people try to explain them in Committee upstairs, but they have never been able to say how they are applied or laid down or how they are broken. As far as the Amendment is concerned, there are bits of it that I think are a considerable improvement on the Clause as it stands. The first part, I think, is good because it sets out in a rather fairer and better notice the procedure regarding the person who is being dealt with. That, it would be to the advantage of the Committee to accept. As far as the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself is concerned, I am quite sure that he would not wish needlessly to injure the taxpayer. The whole objection to this Clause is that, unless you accept this Amendment, you are bound to place more and more burdens on the trading community of this country. The Financial Secretary shakes his head, but that only shows what a very long time it takes to get a simple thing into some heads. In the Clause as it now stands, you may at any time, through your officials, cause a needless and wanton waste of time. Why should these companies, with all the burdens they have already got to put up with, have to go through their files and their lists? [Interruption.]
I am glad to see that the Attorney-General has gone to collect some information. It is perfectly clear that the only reason for placing these additional burdens on companies is that, as a good Socialist, the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes to make private enterprise as difficult as possible and to save the very capable and efficient officials the trouble of going to Somerset House to look through lists for themselves. When you weigh up the reasons in favour of the Amendment and those against it, the greatest asset is the second part of Sub-section (6), because there you are definitely doing something which will make it difficult to lay increased burdens on the taxpayers. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to get up now and tell us that he can accept the Amendment with some slight alterations between
now and another stage, it would help to shorten the proceedings this morning, but unless he can see his way to accept this Amendment or make some promise to us——

Major COLFOX: He is going to move the Closure.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I wish my hon. and gallant Friend behind me would not interrupt. I am trying to get something into the head of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it is a very difficult operation, as anyone knows. I am simply asking him, with the spirit of kindness that I have tried to show towards him during the whole of these proceedings, whether he could not accept this Amendment. I know it may cause him some trouble, and he may have to reorganise it in some way between now and the Report stage, but at the same time it would meet the great feeling throughout the whole country that this particular Clause is a bad one and that, unless you can put something on the lines of this Amendment into the Bill, you are creating an injustice and in addition placing a burden on certain trades, industries and companies at a time when our industries cannot stand further burdens and when we want foreign companies to come in and help us in this country. The right hon. Gentleman has omitted in the Clause to look after his own friends so far as the employés of these companies are concerned. He has omitted entirely to look after the foreign employés of these companies. That is an omission of which I would not have suspected him, because he has always looked after the foreigner. This time, however, he has failed to do so. Although I cannot agree with all the great eulogies of this Amendment, I feel there is a great deal of good in it, and, though not absolutely perfect, I beg the Chancellor once again to try to accept the Amendment.

Mr. SNOWDEN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 182; Noes, 71.

Division No. 367.]
AYES.
[8.16 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Paling, Wilfrid


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Herriotts, J.
Palmer, E. T.


Alpass, J. H.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Ammon, Charles George
Hopkin, Daniel
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Arnott, John
Horrabin, J. F.
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Aske, Sir Robert
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Picton-Tubervill, Edith


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Isaacs, George
Potts, John S.


Barnes, Alfred John
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Price, M. P.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Bellamy, Albert
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Benson, G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Raynes, W. R.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Ritson, J.


Bowen, J. W.
Kelly, W. T.
Romeril, H. G.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Kennedy, Thomas
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Kinley, J.
Rowson, Guy


Brothers, M.
Kirkwood, D.
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield
Lathan, G.
Sanders, W. S.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Sawyer, G. F.


Buchanan, G.
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Scurr, John


Burgees, F. G.
Lawrence, Susan
Shield, George William


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Shillaker, J. F.


Charleton, H. C.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Simmons, C. J.


Church, Major A. G.
Lees, J.
Sitch, Charles H.


Clarke, J. S.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Cluse, W. S.
Lindley, Fred W.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour-
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Compton, Joseph
Logan, David Gilbert
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Cove, William G.
Longbottom, A. W.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Daggar, George
Longden, F.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Dallas, George
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Dalton, Hugh
Lunn, William
Sorensen, R.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Stamford, Thomas W.


Dukes, C.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Stephen, Campbell


Ede, James Chuter
McElwee, A.
Strauss, G. R.


Edmunds, J. E.
McEntee, V. L.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
McShane, John James
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Mansfield, W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Egan, W. H.
Marley, J.
Tout, W. J.


Freeman, Peter
Marshall, Fred
Townend, A. E.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Mathers, George
Vaughan, D. J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Messer, Fred
Wallace, H. W.


Gibson H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)
Middleton, G.
Watkins, F. C.


Gill, T. H.
Mills, J. E.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Glassey, A. E.
Milner, Major J.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gossling, A. G.
Montague, Frederick
Wellock, Wilfred


Gould, F.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Morley, Ralph
Westwood, Joseph


Granville, E.
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Gray, Milner
Mort, D. L.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Moses, J. J. H.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Groves, Thomas E.
Muff, G.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Murnin, Hugh
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Nathan, Major H. L.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Oldfield, J. R.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)



Haycock, A. W.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hayday, Arthur
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Hayes.


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Palin, John Henry





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)


Albery, Irving James
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Iveagh, Countess of


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Duckworth, G. A. V.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.


Beaumont, M. W.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Fielden, E. B.
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Long, Major Eric


Briscoe, Richard George
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lymington, Viscount


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Marjoribanks, E. C.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Muirhead, A. J.


Colville, Major D. J.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hartington, Marquess of
O'Connor, T. J.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Penny, Sir George




Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Smithers, Waldron
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Power, Sir John Cecil
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Wells, Sydney R.


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesail)
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)



Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Captain Sir George Bowyer and


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Warrender, Sir Victor
Major the Marquess of Titchfield.

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 80; Noes, 175.

Division No. 368.]
AYES.
[8.25 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Albery, Irving James
Granville, E.
Peake, Captain Osbert


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Gray, Milner
Penny, Sir George


Beaumont, M. W.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Briscoe, Richard George
Hartington, Marquess of
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Smithers, Waldron


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Iveagh, Countess of
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Colfox, Major William Philip
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Colville, Major D. J.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Long, Major Eric
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lymington, viscount
Warrender, Sir Victor


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wells, Sydney R.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Fielden, E. B.
Muirhead, A. J.



Fison, F. G. Clavering
Nathan, Major H. L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Mr. Glassey and Mr. F. Owen.


Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
O'Connor, T. J.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lathan, G.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Egan, W. H.
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Alpass, J. H.
Freeman, Peter
Law, A. (Rosendale)


Ammon, Charles George
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lawrence, Susan


Arnott, John
Gibbins, Joseph
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Aske, Sir Robert
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Gill, T. H.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Barnes, Alfred John
Gossling, A. G.
Lees, J.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Gould, F.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Bellamy, Albert
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lindley, Fred W.


Benson, G.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Groves, Thomas E.
Logan, David Gilbert


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Longbottom, A. W.


Bowen, J. W.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Longden, F.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hall, G. H. Merthyr Tydvil)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Lunn, William


Brothers, M.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Macdonald, Gerdon (Ince)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Haycock, A. W.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Buchanan, G.
Hayday, Arthur
McElwee, A.


Burgess, F. G.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
McEntee, V. L.


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
McShane, John James


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Herriotts, J.
Mansfield, W.


Charleton, H. C.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Marley, J.


Church, Major A. G.
Hopkin, Daniel
Marshall, Fred


Clarke, J. S.
Horrabin, J. F.
Mathers, George


Cluse, W. S.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Messer, Fred


Cocks, Frederick Seymour.
Isaacs, George
Middleton, G.


Compton, Joseph
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Mills, J. E.


Cove, William G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Milner, Major J.


Daggar, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Montague, Frederick


Dallas, George
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Dalton, Hugh
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Morley, Ralph


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Dukes, C.
Kelly, W. T.
Mort, D. L.


Ede, James Chuter
Kennedy, Thomas
Moses, J. J. H.


Edmunds, J. E.
Kinley, J.
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kirkwood, D.
Muff, G.


Murnin, Hugh
Sawyer, G. F.
Tout, W. J.


Noel Baker, P. J.
Scurr, John
Townend, A. E.


Oldfield, J. R.
Shield, George William
Vaughan, D. J.


Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wallace, H. W.


Palin, John Henry.
Shillaker, J. F.
Watkins, F. C.


Paling, Wilfrid
Simmons, C. J.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Palmer, E. T.
Sitch, Charles H.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Wellock, Wilfred


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Phillips, Dr. Marion
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Westwood, Joseph


Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Smith, Rennie (Penlstone)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Potts, John S.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Price, M. P.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Quibell, D. J. K.
Snowden, Ht. Hon. Philip
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Raynes, W. R.
Sorensen, R.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Stamford, Thomas W.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Ritson, J.
Stephen, Campbell
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Romeril, H. G.
Strauss, G. R.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)



Rowson, Guy
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Tinker, John Joseph
Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Hayes.


Sanders, W. S.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I do so in order to invite the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state what the intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are. On this occasion I shall not make any further offer. The right hon. Gentleman has subjected us to the fullest rigour a majority can apply to a minority in Opposition. He has treated the arguments and representations made to him with supreme, and even insolent, contempt. [Interruption.] His only intervention in debate in the last five hours has been that on three occasions he has moved the Closure. Not for the world would I comment upon that because it is, as it were, Mr. Chairman, sanctified by your acceptance and hallowed by the endorsement of the Committee. That has been the sole guidance on important financial issues which we have received from the high officer of State entrusted with the conduct of the Treasury. [Interruption.] We have been treated with severity. The right hon. Gentleman may continue to ride roughshod over the Committee; we cannot prevent him doing so, but he has little enough to show for all the ill-usage. We offered him this very Clause, which now we are to debate in its final form, 11 hours ago in one hour from that time. [Interruption.] He brushed that aside.
Anyone who has listened to the points adduced know they are points of real substance. In fact, I have rarely heard an all-night sitting in which so many intricate points were put forward in serious debate. It detracts from the
debate that practically no answer is given from the Government benches. Hour after hour Ministers sit glum, glowering, and scowling on the bench as if, forsooth, they were masters of the House of Commons and no one else is to wink or breathe. On this occasion I am not going to make any suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman to give him Clause 18, but he takes it from us by his arbitrary methods. I invite him to declare his intentions, not because I expect to get anything but a prolongation of what we have suffered in the past, but because it is only right and proper that from time to time the Government should be given an opportunity and be asked to state what its views are as to the course of public business. Are we not going to have an answer?

The CHAIRMAN: The Question is——

Mr. CHURCHILL: Are we not to have an answer? [Interruption.] No answer? If this is to be the treatment that the Opposition is to receive, the Opposition that has been going the whole of this night, and which comprises both the non-Socialist political parties, together aggregating about 13,000,000 votes in this country, I shall give the right hon. Gentleman warning that we shall use all our powers to procure respectful treatment from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. After all, he is the servant of the House. What right has he to refuse to give the Committee proper guidance in the matter? [Interruption.] We know well how they would trample on minorities if they had control. The tyranny of the Socialists—[Interrup-
tion.]The right hon. Gentleman is a fitting representative of the intolerant spirit—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] There will be plenty of time to divide. We shall no doubt divide a great deal before we finish! For the right hon. Gentleman to insult the House of Commons by refusing to tell us what his intentions are is an unprecedented act with absolutely no warrant for it, and I will use the whole of the reserves at our command—[Interruption.]

Sir K. WOOD: I desire to add my protest—[Interruption]—to the Chancellor of the Exchequer——

Mr. CHURCHILL: Sir, I rise to a point of Order, to direct your attention to the repeated disorderly interruptions which have already been censured and stigmatised in the course of this debate.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not notice anything out of the way.

Sir K. WOOD: You will remember—[Interruption.]

Mr. CHURCHILL: The proceedings are grossly unparliamentary !

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I really did not notice anything the last time, but I must say that this is out of order. This swishing noise all over the place must cease.

Mr. MUFF: Is the word "swishing" a Parliamentary expression?

Sir K. WOOD: I hope you will not find it necessary to intervene on my behalf. I am accustomed to this noise from a village green—[Interruption.]—and, therefore, I am prepared to excuse the hon. Gentlemen opposite. I was endeavouring to point out, in support of this Motion, how the Chancellor of the Exchequer got up in this Committee a few hours ago and stated that he was going to get Clause 27. I suppose the reason he has not risen in his seat now is that he is not prepared to make that assertion again. It is very evident that we have now reached that stage in our proceedings where at any rate the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to make a full statement to the Committee. I should have thought the simplest, commonest courtesy that the Chancellor could pay to the Committee would be to indicate his intentions and the intentions of the Government. [An
HON. MEMBER: "He gave way to you out of courtesy"] I am looking at the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am sure he has not given way to me. He has shown no courtesy to any Member of the Opposition. I suppose the best reason that can be given in support of the Motion is that the whole of the proceedings have been distinguished by two things—the numerous corrections that the Opposition have had to make in the Bill, and, secondly, the studied discourtesy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I most strongly protest. I am glad now that the public representatives are here that they will be able once again to indicate to the public the methods of the present Government and in particular of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Major HARVEY: I should not like it to go out to the people of this country that it is only the Members of the Front Bench on this side who support this Motion. I can assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on behalf of all my hon. Friends, that they endorse every single word said by my hon. Friends. They deeply resent the discourtesy which has been shown by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to every single Member of this Committee. I am speaking for the Members below the Gangway, and others will speak for the Members of their party. I think that absolute neglect has been shown by the Chancellor of the Exchequer who did not explain any of the intricate points that have been put to him, except by rising three or four times to move the Closure. His conduct is comparable to things which it would be un-parliamentary to mention in this House. For these reasons, I certainly hope that every effort will be made to prevent any further progress than is reasonable.

Mr. E. BROWN: I have been asked to express my opinion on this Motion. I will do so in a story that I commend to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). There was once a very vigorous sergeant-major with some recruits on parade. He looked at them very fiercely, and he said, "Now, if you answer me back, I will run you in. If you do not answer me, I will run you in for contempt."

Captain CAZALET: I feel I must say one word. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is withholding information from us because he believes that his
attitude will tend to make progress in the debate on the Bill, I think he makes a very great mistake. It is quite certain that no one on these benches has any desire to go home or to speak at the present moment. We are only anxious to devote ourselves to our duties, to continue to criticise and to offer constructive suggestions to the Bill which is under discussion at the present moment. The debate which has taken place, and through which I have sat the whole night and morning, has shown that the situation which has arisen is entirely due to the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. [Interruption.] There has never been one single Amendment moved on this last Clause which has not met with some kind of sympathy from Members on both sides of the House, which means that this Bill was extremely badly drafted, and it is necessary that

it should be amended in almost every Clause, and the Amendments that we have put down are all in the direction of helping to make it a better Bill than it was when introduced. If we had had some slight response to the suggestions that we made, we should have gone far beyond Clause 18 at the present moment. I am certain that if the Chancellor will only change his methods, and if the Attorney-General will answer a few of the questions put to him, we are much more likely to make progress than we are under the present methods.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 180; Noes, 73.

Division No. 369.]
AYES.
[8.56 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Marley, J.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Marshall, Fred


Alpass, J. H.
Groves, Thomas E.
Mathers, George


Ammon, Charles George
Grundy, Thomas W.
Messer, Fred


Arnott, John
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Middleton, G.


Aske, Sir Robert
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mills, J. E.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Milner, Major J.


Barnes, Alfred John
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Montague, Frederick


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Haycock, A. W.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Bellamy, Albert
Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)
Morley, Ralph


Benson, G.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Mort, D. L.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Herriotts, J.
Moses, J. J. H.


Bowen, J. W.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hopkin, Daniel
Muff, G.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Horrabin, J. F.
Murnin, Hugh


Brothers, M.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Isaacs, George
Noel Baker, P. J.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Oldfield, J. R.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Burgess, F. G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Palin, John Henry


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Paling, Wilfrid


Clarke, J. S.
Kennedy, Thomas
Palmer, E. T.


Cluse, W. S.
Kinley, J.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Kirkwood, D.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Compton, Joseph
Lathan, G.
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Cove, William G.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Potts, John S.


Daggar, George
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Price, M. P.


Dallas, George
Lawrence, Susan
Quibell, D. F. K.


Dalton, Hugh
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Dukes, C.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Raynes, W. R.


Ede, James Chuter
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Edmunds, J. E.
Lees, J.
Ritson, J.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Romeril, H. G.


Egan, W. H.
Lindley, Fred W.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Foot, Isaac
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Rowson, Guy


Freeman, Peter
Logan, David Gilbert
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Longbottom, A. W.
Sanders, W. S.


Gibbins, Joseph
Longden, F.
Sawyer, G. F.


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Scurr, John


Gill, T. H.
Lunn, William
Shield, George William


Glassey, A. E.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Gossling, A. G.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Shillaker, J. F.


Gould, F.
McElwee, A.
Simmons, C. J.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McEntee, V. L.
Sinkinson, George


Granville, E.
McShane, John James
Sitch, Charles H.


Gray, Milner
Mansfield, W.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Tinker, John Joseph
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Tout, W. J.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Townend, A. E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Vaughan, D. J.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wallace, H. W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Watkins, F. C.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Sorensen, R.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)


Stamford, Thomas W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Stephen, Campbell
Wellock, Wilfred



Strauss, G. R.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Westwood, Joseph
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.




Hayes.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Peake, Captain Osbert


Albery, Irving James
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Hartington, Marquess of
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Brass, Captain Sir William
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Briscoe, Richard George
Haslam, Henry C.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Smithers, Waldron


Cayzer, Maj. Sir, Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Iveagh, Countess of
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Colfox, Major William Philip
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Colville, Major D. J.
Lamb, Sir J. O.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Long, Major Eric
Warrender, Sir Victor


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lymington, Viscount
Wells, Sydney R.


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)



Fielden, E. B.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.-


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Muirhead, A. J.
Sir George Penny and Major The


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Marquess of Titchfield.


Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
O'Connor, T. J.

Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 75; Noes, 183.

Division No. 370.]
AYES.
[9.4 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
O'Connor, T. J.


Albery, Irving James
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Penny, Sir George


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hartington, Marquess of
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Briscoe, Richard George
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Haslam, Henry C.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Smithers, Waldron


Colfox, Major William Philip
Iveagh, Countess of
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Colville, Major D. J.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Long, Major Eric
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lymington, Viscount
Warrender, Sir Victor


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Wells, Sydney R.


Ferguson, Sir John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Fielden, E. B.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive



Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Muirhead, A. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Captain Sir George Bowyer and




Captain Wallace.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Aske, Sir Robert
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Benson, G.


Alpass, J. H.
Barnes, Alfred John
Bentham, Dr. Ethel


Ammon, Charles George
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)


Arnott, John
Bellamy, Albert
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret


Bowen, J. W.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Potts, John S.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Price, M. P.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Kelly, W. T.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Brothers, M.
Kennedy, Thomas
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Kinley, J.
Raynes, W. R.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kirkwood, D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Buchanan, G.
Lathan, G.
Ritson, J.


Burgess, F. G.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Romeril, H. G.


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lawrence, Susan
Rowson, Guy


Charleton, H. C.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Cattle)
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Clarke, J. S.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Sanders, W. S.


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Sawyer, G. F.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lees, J.
Scurr, John


Compton, Joseph
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Shield, George William


Cove, William G.
Lindley, Fred W.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Daggar, George
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Shillaker, J. F.


Dallas, George
Logan, David Gilbert
Simmons, C. J.


Dalton, Hugh
Longbottom, A. W.
Sinkinson, George


Dukes, C.
Longden, F.
Sitch, Charles H.


Ede, James Chuter
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Edmunds, J. E.
Lunn, William
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Egan, W. H.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Foot, Isaac
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Freeman, Peter
McElwee, A.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
McEntee, V. L.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Gibbins, Joseph
McShane, John James
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Mansfield, W.
Sorensen, R.


Gill, T. H.
Marley, J.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Glassey, A. E.
Marshall, Fred
Stephen, Campbell


Gossling, A. G.
Mathers, George
Strauss, G. R.


Gould, F.
Messer, Fred
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Middleton, G.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Granville, E.
Mills, J. E.
Tinker, John Joseph


Gray, Milner
Milner, Major J.
Tout, W. J.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Montague, Frederick
Townend, A. E.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Groves, Thomas E.
Morley, Ralph
Wallace, H. W.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Watkins, F. C.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Mort, D. L.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hall, G. H. Merthyr Tydvil)
Moses, J. J. H.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Wellock, Wilfred


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Muff, G.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Haycock, A. W.
Murnin, Hugh
Westwood, Joseph


Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)
Nathan, Major H. L.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Oldfield, J. R.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Harriotts, J.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hopkin, Daniel
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Horrabin, J. F.
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Paling, Wilfrid
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Isaacs, George
Palmer, E. T.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.




Hayes.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do leave the Chair."
In view of the unprecedented event which has just taken place, namely, an entire debate upon the Question put by you from the Chair with an obvious conspiracy of silence maintained on the Ministerial Benches, I feel bound to move under Rule 68 that you do now leave the Chair and I make this Motion for the express purpose of inviting the Prime Minister, who is we believe, in the House, to come to the aid of the Committee in the difficult situation in which it now finds itself. This long and strenuous debate has been conducted with decorum and without ill temper, but I
warn the Government that I am bound to draw the attention of the occupant of the Chair to the fact that very strong feelings are excited by the continuous refusal of the Government to take part in the discussion in any way. Their only part in these discussions is simply to remain there, refusing to debate or even to indicate to the House what its future course of business is to be. Such a proceeding is unprecedented.

Mr. BECKETT: On a point of Order. In moving the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman is now moving, is he entitled to discuss what the Government are doing? I submit that in a speech
on this Motion he is entitled only to discuss the merits or demerits of your action.

The CHAIRMAN: The merits or demerits of my action do not come in at all. In moving this Motion the right hon. Gentleman should only state the reasons why he is moving it.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The reasons, as I have stated, are the conspiracy of silence on the Government Benches, the unprecedented fact of a debate with an absolute refusal to answer, the fact that the Committee have no knowledge of how far the Government intend to go, the fact that they contumaciously withheld——

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: On a point of Order. Is not this Motion moved by the right hon. Gentleman a Motion on which you yourself have a discretion as to whether it may be discussed?

The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I ask that the Prime Minister as Leader of the House should come to our aid at this time, and I ask specifically that he should know that that is the wish of those who sit on this side of the Committee, that the Prime Minister himself should come as Leader of the House and perhaps prevent matters assuming a very different complexion.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I rise to support this Motion. I do so for the strongest possible reason. The reason is that we wish to have the Prime Minister here because he is the Leader of the House and is primarily responsible for seeing not merely that the Bill is got through but that the legislation passed in this House is good legislation, and anyone who has been present during the long hours which we have been sitting must realise that by now it is perfectly impossible for an intricate Bill like this Finance Bill to—[HON. MEMBERS: "You were wasting time!"] I am in your hands when I am told I have been wasting time.

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman takes that too personally. It is applied to the whole Committee.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Then hon. Members come under their own condemnation. We need to have the Prime Minister here because this is an extremely intricate Bill, and the country wants it to
have proper consideration and to emerge from this Committee in as good a form as it possibly can emerge, and that cannot be secured unless we have some relaxation in order to concentrate our thoughts on all the new subjects to be brought up in the Clauses that are to follow. We have immediately in front of us Clause 19, with an entirely different subject, with provisions dealing with the collection of taxes. Then we come to the valuation Clauses, where there are a whole series of entirely different considerations to be gone into. That has now to be disposed of. It is not a question of getting so many Clauses of this Bill as of seeing that the Bill as it passes from this Committee is in proper shape. The strongest argument that could be put forward is that the very Amendments you yourself have selected for debate have shown the great need for the Amendments suggested from this side of the House. I give Clause 18 as a reason for having the Prime Minister here to consider what further progress should be made. As Clause 18 has emerged, and before we begin its general discussion, hardly half the lines in it are the same as they were.
That is what comes of having a Clause in this imperfect form brought before the Committee. [Interruption.] If hon. Members think that time has been wasted, they can at any rate see that the Government themselves, little as they have responded to our requests, have been compelled by force of argument on the demerits of their own Clause, to alter pretty well half the lines. Hon. Members opposite have been saying, "Why has time been wasted?" They know their own Chancellor of the Exchequer and the way in which he treats them in their own party. They know quite well the way in which he can treat the considerations they lay before him, and they know quite well, too, that when anybody is treated in the way that they have been treated in their turn, it naturally does not lead to things going smoothly. As hon. Members opposite know quite well in their hearts, if we had been reasonably treated at a quite early stage of the proceedings, the whole of the events of this night would have taken a different turn.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: May I ask your Ruling, Mr. Chairman, as to whether the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to re
view the whole of the happenings throughout the whole of the night?

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman must be allowed to give his reasons for supporting the Motion.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: On a point of Order. This Motion has been moved under Standing Order 68. I venture to suggest this point for your consideration: Proceedings in Committee of the Whole House may at any time be discontinued by an Order to report Progress or by an Order that the Chairman do leave the Chair. I submit that it is not within the meaning of this Standing Order that a second Order that you do leave the Chair can be exercised after the first has been used; that they are alternatives, but that one is not supplementary to the other, and that as the Committee have just decided that we do not report Progress the right hon. Gentleman cannot use this second alternative. The only difference between the two is this, and this, I think, supports the contention that they are alternative; if the first alternative were adopted and carried the result would be that the Committee could sit again. It would simply adjourn the debate. But in the second case, if the Motion now before the Committee were carried, it would mean the end of the Bill under consideration. I do submit to you, therefore, that it is not in accordance either with the spirit or the letter of the Manual of Procedure that after a Motion to report Progress has been defeated the second alternative should immediately be proposed.

Mr. CHURCHILL: On that point of Order. May I submit the historical reasons which have led to these two procedures being incorporated in Standing Order 68?

The CHAIRMAN: It is in the Manual of Procedure; therefore it is not a Standing Order that is referred to.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I made a mistake, but if I may be permitted to proceed with the point of Order. The process is quite clear, and everyone knows quite well why there are these alternatives. These two are presented for the purpose, as the right hon. Gentleman ought to know, for which they are now used. It
has always been impossible, when the Committee have decided not to report Progress, to repeat that Motion, and for that very purpose those who have safeguarded the procedure have introduced an alternative, to move that the Chairman do leave the Chair. It is intended that when one of these procedures has been used and the minority of the Committee are still not satisfied that the debate is proceeding under proper conditions, it shall be open to them to put the second Motion. There is really no doubt whatever about that.
Proof of this is inherent in the procedure. It has been inserted in the procedure that the Chairman shall have the discretion to disallow either of these Motions if he considers it an abuse of the Rules of the House. I well remember, from my study of the proceedings of the Irish Nationalist party in the years from 1880 to 1885, before the reformed procedure came in, that it was the custom of the Irish Parliamentary party, when dissatisfied with the treatment they received from the Government, to move to report Progress, and to move in succession that the Chairman do leave the Chair, and to continue that process ad infinitum until they brought the proceedings of the Committee to a standstill. It was to guard against that abuse of the Rules that discretion was given to the Chairman to refuse a Motion if he thinks there is an abuse of procedure. So far from the right hon. Gentleman's point being correct, he is totally misconceived as to the whole purpose and character of this particular procedure, and I invite from you, Mr. Chairman, a ruling which will make perfectly clear the liberties of the House of Commons. You may not always be in the place of power, or we in the place of Opposition.

The CHAIRMAN: The question put to me is whether I can accept a Motion to leave the Chair after a Motion to report Progress has been defeated. It is properly within the competence of any Member to move that I do leave the Chair after the previous Motion has been moved and defeated. It is also within my competence to determine whether I should accept it or not. I need not go further for a precedent than the debate on the Finance Bill which began on the 27th May last, when the Question was put in
the same way and accepted. The Question was, "That the Question be now put," and that was put and divided upon. Then the Question was, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." That was divided upon, and the Motion was then made by the right hon. Gentleman himself "That the Chairman do leave the Chair," and after discussion it was, by leave, withdrawn.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): Was not the precedent you quoted, Sir, on an entirely different question, and concerned with the conduct of the Chair in allowing Closure Motions?

The CHAIRMAN: No.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The conduct of the Chair can only be discussed after full notice given.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will proceed with the remarks that I was making. The reason we moved this particular Motion and asked for the Leader of the House——

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Morgan Jones): On a point of Order. I desire to draw your attention to Standing Order No. 22, which, I submit, precludes the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) from moving this Motion by reason of the fact that he himself was the one who previously had moved, "That the Chairman do report Progress."

The CHAIRMAN: This does not preclude the Motion. The first Motion was to report Progress, and the other was that I should leave the Chair. It is not the same Motion.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: The point is not that it is the same Motion, but that it is the same debate.

Mr. E. BROWN: Surely the point is that there are two different forms of a dilatory Motion.

The CHAIRMAN: I accepted the second Motion.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will proceed with my remarks. I was——

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: On a point of Order. I venture to submit to you, with
great respect, that Standing Order No. 22, on page 282 of the "Manual of Procedure," states:
When a Motion is made for the adjournment of a debate, or of the house during any debate, or that the chairman of a committee do report progress, or do leave the chair, the debate thereupon shall be confined to the matter of such motion; and no member, having moved or seconded any such motion"—
that is, either to report Progress or that you do leave the Chair—
shall be entitled to move, or second, any similar motion during the same debate.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not dispute that there was a Motion to report Progress before, but this is a different question, and may I point out that it and the Motion to report Progress have been made as substantive Motions and not during a debate to which the Standing Order in terms applies?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is now apparent to most hon. Members how many minutes have recently been lost through points of Order being raised by the opposite side which have no substance in them, and that now that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has broken his long silence he has wasted his own time and that of the Committee. I think we are entitled to say, under these circumstances, that any complaints made by hon. Members opposite are less pertinent than they would be if they would only take care as to their own methods and their own careful use of time. Now that I am able to continue my point, I will repeat it once more. My right hon. Friend has asked that we should have the presence of the Prime Minister, and I have adduced reasons why it is eminently desirable that he should be here. He peculiarly, of all people, is responsible for the conduct of the House and the nature of its legislation, in so far as it rests upon any one individual. I want to emphasise the last point particularly, that the course of affairs would have been very different if they had been conducted in as conciliatory a manner as their conduct during the past few hours has been controversial, menacing, and unfavourable to progress. If we had been met in the way that we suggest that the Leader of the House might meet us if he were here, we might find it
possible to get reasonable Amendments considered and reasonably met, and we might have it pointed out what progress is really intended to be made under these entirely changed conditions. If we were met in that way, I am sure the party opposite, whatever might be the feelings of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would at any rate be satisfied with the greater chance of material progress being made, and that this Bill, when it emerges from the Committee stage, would be infinitely better than it is likely to be if we had the Committee led with the same, to use an old phrase, wantonness and stubbornness as we have witnessed during the last few hours.

Captain CROOKSHANK: The Motion has the cordial support of everyone on the Back Benches. On an occasion like this the Back Benches have got their rights as much as the Front Benches. We have had to put up with a great deal during the course of this long sitting, and there is ample reason why we should ask for guidance from the Prime Minister in this matter. It is perhaps strange to hear that wish expressed by Members on this side of the Committee—that the Committee should clamour for the return of the Prime Minister. We do it because he is Leader of the House. Everybody opposite appears to be in a good mood and to have had a good breakfast. Yet the Government Benches were not so full earlier in the morning as they are now, nor was the Front Bench. Many of the hon. Members opposite were not here to see what it was like when we had present only the three Graces—the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Financial Secretary, and the Attorney-General. We had the deep silence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Financial Secretary accepted Amendment after Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: There seems to be a disposition to discuss what we have done instead of why I should leave the Chair.

Captain CROOKSHANK: As a good Conservative I have always believed that the roots of the future are to be found in the past. Let us look at where we find ourselves now. What is the Chancellor of the Exchequer going to do to us? If he would only answer the question
put at repeated intervals it would not be necessary to make this clamant demand for the presence of the Prime Minister. It is just because he so stubbornly refuses to answer that question that we desire the presence of the Prime Minister who, there is reason to believe, is not far away. We know his official residence is near enough to allow him to come, and for that we have allowed him ample opportunity even after having a long morning in bed. [Interruption.]

The CHAIRMAN: I wish hon. Members would allow the hon. Member to proceed.

Captain CROOKSHANK: They inform us that the Prime Minister is in the precincts. What is he keeping away for? Why doesn't he come?

The CHAIRMAN: I really must ask Members on both sides to confine themselves to the reason why I should leave the Chair.

HON. MEMBERS: Where is Baldwin?

Captain CROOKSHANK: When aspersions are made on the leader of my party, I would say that it is not his job to be here, because he is not the Leader of the House. Circumstances being such as they are, it is for the Prime Minister to be here. The Chairman has, unfortunately, no right of habeas corpus to send for him. We can only plead that one of his party should go out and tell him how much he is required. At this moment, when one sees the Prime Minister appealing for non-party ventures with regard to agriculture——

The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman, for the last time, to address himself to the Motion.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I apologise. It was merely an illustration. May I use "Council of State."

The CHAIRMAN: The question is that I should leave the Chair.

Captain CROOOKSHANK: How can we get an amicable conduct of business when we are treated as we have been treated during this debate? When we make an appeal we are met with a blank wall of indifference. Let us accept this Motion as a protest against the conduct of affairs when the Committee is under the leadership of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided Ayes,: 188; Noes, 78.

Division No. 371.]
AYES.
[9.50 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Herriotts, J.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. B. Wentworth)
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Alpass, J. H.
Hollins, A.
Potts, John S.


Ammon, Charles George
Hopkin, Daniel
Price, M. P.


Arnott, John
Horrabin, J. F.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Isaacs, George
Raynes, W. R.


Bellamy, Albert
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Ritson, J.


Benson, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Romeril, H. G.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Rowson, Guy


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Bowen, J. W.
Kelly, W. T.
Sanders, W. S.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Kennedy, Thomas
Sawyer, G. F.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Scurr, John


Brothers, M.
Kinley, J.
Shield, George William


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Kirkwood, D.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Lathan, G.
Shillaker, J. F.


Buchanan, G.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Simmons, C. J.


Burgess, F. G.
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Sinkinson, George


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Lawrence, Susan
Sitch, Charles H.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Church, Major A. G.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Clarke, J. S.
Lees, J.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Cluse, W. S.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lindley, Fred W.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Compton, Joseph
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Cove, William G.
Logan, David Gilbert
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Daggar, George
Longbottom, A. W.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Dallas, George
Longden, F.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Dalton, Hugh
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Sorensen, R.


Dukes, C.
Lunn, William
Stamford, Thomas W.


Ede, James Chuter
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Stephen, Campbell


Edmunds, J. E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Strauss, G. R.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
McElwee, A.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Egan, W. H.
McEntee, V. L.
Tinker, John Joseph


Foot, Isaac.
McShane, John James
Tout, W. J.


Freeman, Peter
Mansfield, W.
Townend, A. E.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Marley, J.
Vaughan, D. J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Marshall, Fred
Wallace, H. W.


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Mathers, George
Watkins, F. C.


Gill, T. H.
Messer, Fred
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Glassey, A. E.
Middleton, G.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gossling, A. G.
Mills, J. E.
Wellock, Wilfred


Gould, F.
Montague, Frederick
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Granville, E.
Morley, Ralph
West, F. R.


Gray, Milner
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Westwood, Joseph


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Mort, D. L.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Moses, J. J. H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Groves, Thomas E.
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Muff, G.
Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Murnin, Hugh
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Nathan, Major H. L.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Oldfield, J. R.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Haycock, A. W.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)



Hayes, John Henry
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Palin, John Henry
Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Paling.


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Palmer, E. T.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Colville, Major D. J.


Albery, Irving James
Brass, Captain Sir William
Courtauld, Major J. S.


Atholl, Duchess of
Briscoe, Richard George
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Beaumont, M. W.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Duckworth, G. A. V.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Colfox, Major William Philip
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Ferguson, Sir John
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Fielden, E. B.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Long, Major Eric
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Smithers, Waldron


Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir D.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Clrencester)
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Muirhead, A. J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hartington, Marquess of
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
O'Connor, T. J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Haslam, Henry C.
Peake, Capt. Osbert
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wells, Sydney R.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Womersley, W. J.


Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Ramsbotham, H.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Iveagh, Countess of
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell



Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Sir George Penny and Captain




Wallace.

Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do leave the Chair."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 79; Noes, 194.

Division No. 372.]
AYES.
[9.58 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Albery, Irving James
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Ramsbotham, H.


Atholl, Duchess of
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Beaumont, Mr. W.
Hartington, Marquess of
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Haslam, Henry C.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Brass, Captain Sir William
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Smithers, Waldron


Briscoe, Richard George
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Iveagh, Countess of
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Colville, Major D. J.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Long, Major Eric
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Wells, Sydney R.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Womersley, W. J.


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Muirhead, A. J.



Ferguson, Sir John
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fielden, E. B.
O'Connor, T. J.
Sir George Penny and Captain


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Peake, Capt. Osbert
Wallace.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Gossling, A. G.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Church, Major A. G.
Gould, F.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Clarke, J. S.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Cluse, W. S.
Granville, E.


Alpass, J. H.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour.
Gray, Milner


Ammon, Charles George
Compton, Joseph
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)


Arnott, John
Cove, William G.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Daggar, George
Groves, Thomas E.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Dallas, George
Grundy, Thomas W.


Bellamy, Albert
Dalton, Hugh
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Day, Harry
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Benson, G.
Dukes, C.
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Ede, James Chuter
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Edmunds, J. E.
Harris, Percy A.


Blindell, James
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Haycock, A. W.


Bowen, J. W.
Egan, W. H.
Hayes, John Henry


Broad, Francis Alfred
Foot, Isaac
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Freeman, Peter
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)


Brothers, M.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Herriotts, J.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gibbins, Joseph
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)


Buchanan, G.
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Hollins, A.


Burgess, F. G.
Gill, T. H.
Hopkin, Daniel


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Glassey, A. E.
Horrabin, J. F.


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Montague, Frederick
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Isaacs, George
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Morley, Ralph
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Mort, D. L.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Moses, J. J. H.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Muff, G.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Kelly, W. T.
Murnin, Hugh
Sorensen, R.


Kennedy, Thomas
Nathan, Major H. L.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Noel Baker, P. J.
Stephen, Campbell


Kinley, J.
Oldfield, J. R.
Strauss, G. R.


Kirkwood, D.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Taylor R. A. (Lincoln)


Lathan, G.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Tinker, John Joseph


Law, A. (Rosendale)
Palin, John Henry
Tout, W. J.


Lawrence, Susan
Palmer, E. T.
Townend, A. E.


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Vaughan, D. J.


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wallace, H. W.


Lees, J.
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Watkins, F. C.


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Potts, John S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Lindley, Fred W.
Price, M. P.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Quibell, D. J. K.
Wellock, Wilfred


Logan, David Gilbert
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Longbottom, A. W.
Raynes, W. R.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Longden, F.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
West, F. R.


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Ritson, J.
Westwood, Joseph


Lunn, William
Romeril, H. G.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Rowson, Guy
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


McElwee, A.
Sanders, W. S.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


McEntee, V. L.
Sawyer, G. F.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


McShane, John James
Scurr, John
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Mansfield, W.
Shield, George William
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Marley, J.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Marshall, Fred
Shillaker, J. F.
Wise, E. F.


Mathers, George
Simmons, C. J.



Messer, Fred
Sinkinson, George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Middleton, G.
Sitch, Charles H.
Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Paling.


Mills, J. E.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Sir K. WOOD: The opportunity should be taken to discuss this particular Clause which, as everyone will agree, has been considerably altered by the Amendments made to it, and in no less than four important particulars. The opportunity has now come, and it is important to review the Clause in the light of the alterations that have been made, of the criticisms which have been directed to the Clause, and in view of the failure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal with them. Most unprejudiced hearers of the discussion will agree that the proposals in the Clause strike a very serious blow at the liberty of a good many subjects of this country. There is no doubt that the Clause proposes, for the first time, to fasten on the Commissioners a special duty which very gravely affects the liberty of the subject. That was very well exemplified when we came to discuss the Amendment moved from the Liberal benches.
I hope that either the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary
to the Treasury, when they come to reply to this debate, will re-state, if they can, the objections of the Government, if they are valid, to the proposals which were made to safeguard the liberty of the subject. These proposals were to provide that before a blow is aimed at the individual affected by this Clause, he should have due notice served on him of the intentions of the Commissioners so to proceed, that they should show that there was a prima facie case, and that, in any event, the individual affected should have the right of appeal to the Courts. I am perfectly aware—I think the Attorney-General or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has stated it—that they have no intention so to affect the liberty of the subject. If that is their view and their intention, I cannot see how there can be any objection to some safeguards being incorporated in the Clause to carry out the intention which I believe animates the majority of Members. I do not think, at any rate, that the majority of the Members of this Committee desire this particular weapon to be used unfairly, and there may be many Members who think that some sort of provision of this
sort should be included. I think they will agree that there should be some protection given to the citizen affected, and that before the Commissioners concerned put into operation a provision of this kind the person affected should have due notice and full rights to go before the courts of the country and dispute and challenge the attitude of the Commissioners, if he thinks fit.
I see there are now present one or two hon. Members who have not shared the evening and morning with us. I hope they will appreciate, coming as they do with fresh minds and vigour to this discussion, that for the first time in this country special Commissioners can, by delivering a notice, demand from either a corporation or a company a certified copy of certain entries in various registers affecting the financial interests of various classes, but which many hon. Members apprehend may be used against the individual as well. I am appealing to the Government, if they do not adopt the words proposed from the Liberal Benches, to insert some safeguarding terms which will prevent this Clause being used against individuals. That is my first argument. Then I desire to emphasise what was said in debate, that the operation of the Clause itself, so far as the companies and corporations are concerned, is likely to work with a certain amount of hardship, because unlike the position existing at present, when if the special Commissioners desire information as to the holdings of particular individuals they have to seek it themselves either from Somerset House or from some other source, for the first time they can now demand it from the corporation or company concerned who may be called upon to provide certified copies.
The provision that is made in respect of the expense to which the company or corporation may be put, is totally inadequate, as has been shown in the general debate. The Financial Secretary, who dealt with this particular aspect of the matter, certainly did not tell us whether the Government had made any inquiries of the companies or corporations concerned as to whether the financial proposals for the expense to which they are to be put are adequate. He did not tell us whether they had been consulted or had given their views. Many Members
who have special experience of companies have cited from their own commercial experience the considerable likelihood that the provision made in this Clause for the payment of the certified copies of various entries is totally inadequate. I do suggest to the Government that between now and the further stages of the Bill they should reconsider that particular aspect of the matter. I think it would be in the interests of those who believe in the principles of the Clause itself, if the Government believe it is a necessary and desirable Clause, that this should be done.
If the machinery is to work easily and smoothly and if the Commissioners are to take the line indicated in a new principle of this kind, they would to a very large extent, I am sure, themselves desire to have the co-operation of the companies and other bodies concerned, and would not desire that constant demands should be made upon these companies and corporations for certified copies of entries at a rate of remuneration which the bodies concerned regard as inadequate and which most people outside may also regard as inadequate. I think it is in the interests of the Clause itself that this matter should be re-examined and attention given to the question whether there should not be some increase in the rate of remuneration.
There is only one other matter to which I want to refer. I am glad to see the President of the Board of Trade is now with us. We hope he brings good humour and light and help to these proceedings, for it is very badly needed on that particular bench. I would direct the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to this point, because no doubt he will be more able to deal with it. We are discussing, curiously enough, the same Clause as that which we were discussing when he left the Chamber—or almost the same Clause. He has no doubt thought about it in the night, and I want to direct his attention to this matter because it comes more within his jurisdiction than that of any other Minister. The point is the penalties which are likely to be imposed under this Clause upon what we may call defaulting companies or corporations. It will be remembered that the Government made the extraordinary suggestion that the person who should bear the penalty for any default under this Clause should be the un-
fortunate clerk or secretary. That was a very strange proposal which either was due to great carelessness in the drafting or complete misapprehension as to the legal position and a great deal of ignorance as to who should really suffer in the event of non-compliance on the part of the bodies concerned.
We have now altered that. The President of the Board of Trade may be glad to know that no longer will the penalty be imposed upon the clerk or secretary, at any rate in the first instance. It may be the body or the company or the corporation who, if they default, will have to pay the penalty. We had a long discussion—not too long, because in the end we succeeded in compelling the Government to make some necessary alterations in the Clause—upon what may be called the subject matter of penalties. Unfortunately—no doubt perfectly properly, and I am making no criticism of any kind in this respect—we were unable to discuss by means of the Amendment the first penalty which would be inflicted in the case of a defaulting company or corporation. It is fixed for the first offence, at a sum not exceeding £50. I think that does call for some comment, as we are unable to discuss this matter owing to the Amendment not having been called. It does seem to me, and I know it has occurred to many other hon. Members, that that penalty is rather a heavy one. I dare say the President of the Board of Trade, in his researches into the Companies Acts and other Statutes, is familiar with the usual penalties which are imposed in cases of this kind.
I cannot recollect a similar case where such a heavy penalty is allowed to be imposed in the first instance. I can understand that on a second or third offence heavier penalties might be imposed. If a corporation or company repeatedly flouted the law of the land, which it is their duty to obey, although they might not like the law, and were guilty of contempt of court, then I can understand a heavier penalty being imposed. The strange thing is that, when we come to the continuing penalties, at the instance of the Attorney-General there has been inserted, not a further penalty of £50 for every day, but a like penalty for every day. That seems to me a rather extraordinary situation. I can understand that on the second or third offence a court should be permitted to
increase the penalty, but in this provision which the Attorney-General has seen fit to insert in the Bill a court has no option and no discretion. The result is that under this Clause the default of a corporation or a company may lead to the court imposing a penalty of £50 and then a recurring penalty of a like amount. That is not a very useful provision.
What I am urging on the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that he should reconsider this question of penalties, particularly so far as the further penalties are concerned. This is, indeed, a very important Clause. It brings about a considerable alteration in the law of the country. Many of us on the Opposition side have certainly subjected to this Clause what I might call devastating criticism. I desire to pay a special tribute to the hon. and gallant Member for North-east Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) who, at three or four o'clock in the morning, delivered one of the most powerful speeches I have ever heard in this Parliament, and I am sorry to think that it was delivered at such an hour that the Press of this country and hon. Members of this Committee were not able to take full advantage of it. Neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the Financial Secretary has made any adequate reply, and, indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made no reply at all. The conduct of the proceedings, such as they were, has been in the hands of the Attorney-General and the Financial Secretary. The Attorney-General has done his best under great difficulties. I suspected that he had not seen this Clause, except very cursorily, until he entered the Chamber.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being present——

Sir K. WOOD: I have only a few more words to say. In my judgment the Government have not justified their reasons for the inclusion of this Clause in this Bill at all. One of the most powerful points was made by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) who, with his usual sagacity, asked a question that has never been answered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—why is this Clause in the Bill at all? That is, indeed, a question that might very well be answered. I am puzzled to know why many Clauses are included in the Bill.

Mr. DALLAS: Why this Bill at all?

Sir K. WOOD: I can understand the hon. Member thinking that. Large numbers of people in this country are asking, "Why this Bill at all?" I suppose, however, that I must not enter into that matter at this stage, tempted though I am by hon. Members on the other side. The Bill has not been justified. It is a Bill that imposes on the liberty of the subject, and this particular provision of the Bill, even if one were able to justify its inclusion, could not now be justified, having regard to the proposals before the House. I hope the Opposition will divide against it.

Mr. HASLAM: This is an important and far-reaching Clause. It threatens the individual taxpayer as he has never been threatened before. I am pleased that this discussion is being conducted in the presence of the public Press and at a time when the country as a whole can be made aware of the objections we take to it.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: May I say that, while I do not desire to prevent hon. Members stating their objections to this Clause, we have had a very prolonged discussion on every phase of it and I must rule that we cannot have a mere repetition of arguments which have been used. I am more than anxious to protect the rights of minorities but I must also safeguard the rights of the majority. I want to be quite fair, and I must rule that needless repetition must not take place.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: May I respectfully point out that your ruling is very drastic, and one which I have never heard before. On any new question—and this is entirely a new question—I have always understood that when I have been in the Chair in Committee I have always ruled, that an argument was not repetition because it had been used on a previous Amendment, and that it was not repetition to use an argument on the Question, "That the Clause stand part" which has been used on a previous Amendment. Your ruling is so serious, that I do not think it should pass without comment or protest.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is quite in order for hon. Members to give their reasons why the Clause should not stand
part, but every latitude has been given for going into a detailed discussion on various Amendments and the Standing Orders hold good, that it is out of order for arguments to be repeated unnecessarily. I am simply warning hon. Members that as long as they keep to reasons why the Clause should not stand part they are in order, but I cannot allow needless repetition.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Are we to understand your ruling to mean that because Amendments have been discussed it is out of order for hon. Members to discuss them on the Clause standing part?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I did not rule that. I ruled that needless repetition is not in order.

Mr. HASLAM: I trust that your Ruling against needless repetition did not apply to any remarks I had made. All I was doing was to comment on the fact that this discussion was taking place in the presence of the Press. Earlier in the debate the hon. and learned Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Birkett) decribed this Clause as revolutionary. That is a strong word, and a significant word when used by an eminent lawyer. Gentleman of the legal profession do not use such words lightly. Why did the hon. and learned Member use that word? He did so because the Clause introduces a procedure on the part of the Inland Revenue authorities which has never been used before. The Attorney-General justified the Clause on the ground that it was necessary to fill up certain gaps. He did not say that it was a new procedure. Let me read the words which the Attorney-General used in order to justify the Clause:
Broadly speaking, the returns of public companies registered at Somerset House can be inspected and the inland Revenue authorities exercise their powers under Section 22 of the Finance Act, 1922, by getting the taxpayer to return a full and detailed list of securities while, at the same time, having a staff whose duty is to investigate from time to time at Somerset House and very often finding a discrepancy between the returns at Somerset House and the returns shown by the taxpayer on his list.
At the present moment there is this inadequacy which we want to remedy. The difficulty is, first, that the registers at Somerset House do not extend to debentures, and there is no means of finding out from Somerset House the details in regard to debentures or debenture stocks. Secondly—and perhaps more seriously—with regard to
statutory companies, these are not required to keep registers at Somerset House at all. Consequently with regard to them there is a very big gap, and the Inland Revenue authorities therefore desire, in regard to debentures in all companies and with regard to holdings in statutory companies, to be armed with exactly the same powers as they possess to-day in regard to the ordinary taxpayers whose holdings are registered at Somerset House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th June, 1930; col. 179, Vol. 240.]
The Attorney-General says they want exactly the same powers as they possess to-day. Many eminent lawyers in this House have said that the powers given in this Clause extend considerably beyond the existing powers and that they may be used for the pursuit of the individual. That is a state of things against which we are fully justified in protesting to the utmost of our ability. What does the Clause do to fill up the gaps referred to by the Attorney-General? Sub-section (5) of this Clause says:
In this section the expression 'security' includes shares, stock, debentures and debenture stock and the expression 'entry' means, in relation to any register, so much thereof as relates to the securities held by any one person.
It says shares and stocks, in addition to debentures. It applies to public companies. If it is only intended to fill a gap, why does the Chancellor of the Exchequer go beyond what is necessary to fill the gap and require all these additional returns to be made? Why is power taken beyond what is necessary for the purposes of the Clause? In the Sub-section the expression "security" is to include securities held by any one person, and it has been stated that one entry might cover the entries of one individual shareholder in all the various classes of stock and that the fee of 5s. will only be payable in respect of one entry. That entry might relate to four or five different kinds of stock. It would probably relate to considerably more, as in many railway companies there are 10 or 12 different stocks and shares, and therefore the fee of 5s. might be held to include quite a considerable number. It means that these companies will have to go to considerable expense and trouble to provide these "specified class of entries." Let the Government take the full entry and be content with that. It is a concession which would give them immensely greater powers than they already possess and it would lift the
fear of the pursuit of the individual taxpayer, behind his back and without his knowledge; which is a most un-English way of procedure.

Major G. DAVIES: Now that we have reached the stage of a general discussion of this Clause, when our minds are filled with many of the details of the Amendments which have been debated during the last hour or two, I should like to touch upon one or two general considerations which this Clause brings very vividly to the minds of those who have studied it carefully. It is one of a class of Clause in the Bill upon which many of us look with a good deal of sympathy for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who appears to have been used as a kind of dumping ground by his colleagues in the Treasury in order to get on to the Statute Book some old friends which they have often tried to trot out in previous years but for which they have failed hitherto to find a purchaser.
I should be out of Order if I went into the details of any of the other Measures but those who have followed these debates probably remember similar occasions previously on which either the Treasury or Somerset House has found a Chancellor of the Exchequer willing to incorporate in his Finance Bill certain provisions designed solely to assist the Department concerned in what should be its own proper job. There was, for instance, the question of rebate on improperly deducted Income Tax—though that was not part of a Finance Bill—and here is another proposal brought forward as a convenience to the Revenue authorities, without any regard to the inconvenience or injustice which is being perpetrated on the community as a whole. Many different Amendments have been adopted and many different points of view put forward, but, stripped of verbiage, and coming down to the real sense of the Clause, what is its intention, as far as we have been able to ascertain it? It has not, I may say, been easy to get from the successive occupants of the Front Bench during this Debate answers as to what is intended by the Clause. But it would appear that the Inland Revenue have occasion sometimes to suspect that whether by malice prepense or by neglect, there is a certain amount of evasion of taxable income and they want to get
hold of it. That is a laudable desire on their part and one about which there is no difference of opinion but how are they setting about it? They are taking power, without notifying the individual concerned that he is under suspicion, to go to different incorporated companies and to demand—with the possibility of very savage penalties behind them—that certain information shall be given to them.
The onus of ascertaining that information is placed upon the company concerned, and if there is any error, then ft is within the province of the courts or the Revenue authorities to decide if and to what extent, that error is pardonable. The amount of the penalty will depend on their opinion in that matter. As a result, the enormous task is placed upon the companies concerned of digging out and collating information which it is the duty of the Revenue authorities themselves to ascertain, and not to pass on to industrial organisations in the country. Those of us who have had a more or less close connection with the complications of the present-day developments of incorporated companies, realise what a difficult matter it can be to find out exactly the amount of capital held by one individual, whether in his individual capacity or as a co-trustee or as a part-holder of a joint interest. It is a very difficult matter to discover all this kind of information, accurately, in view of all the aggregations of capital, and the various aspects of capital in different undertakings, but that work, by this Clause, is being placed upon the company concerned.
The individual shareholder all this time has no idea that he is under suspicion. He is not notified by the authorities that they think he has made a mistake, and, at the same time, there is no limit to the number of times they can go to one company with regard to a certain individual, or to a number of companies with regard to a number of individuals. I protest strongly against putting such a Clause on the Statute Book purely in the interests of the convenience of certain outside servants of the public. It creates a manifest injustice and imposes a burden which will be resented by the taxpayers of this country, not by those who are trying to avoid paying their just share of the cost
of running the country, but by those who have been regularly, as far as they know, making proper returns, and who suddenly find that the Inland Revenue—I was going to say Scotland Yard—have them under suspicion, and that a sort of Bertillon system of thumb marks is being applied to find out whether they are liable to a penalty of £50 a day or not. That is to be done without giving them the opportunity of saving the authorities all this trouble, which could be done if the authorities went to bona fide citizens and said, "Are you satisfied that your return is complete, because we have a suspicion that it is not?" In this Clause as in many other similar provisions we are simply doing the work for somebody else and putting the onus on entirely innocent people in the interests of the Inland Revenue.
Before we part from this Clause may I point out that there seems to be an inadequate appreciation on the part of those responsible for the Finance Bill of the amount of work, not only theoretical but actual, which they are seeking to place on the company and the inadequate remuneration which is being provided for it. On the face of it, the amount provided for in the Measure would not seem to be out of the way, but we must realise the amount of work involved in finding out the actual holdings of one individual person. There are innumerable complexities because, as I have pointed out, in many cases there are joint holdings and trustee holdings and so forth, and an enormous amount of what may be called original research will be involved in providing this information. Furthermore, unless the information is accurate and full, the whole point of the Inland Revenue's efforts is gone. Their idea is to check the accuracy of the returns, and to do so they must rely on the accuracy of this information. That, of course, is the reason for these heavy and staggering fines. It is essential, if the Clause is to be of any use at all, that this information should be perfectly reliable. The possibility of error, however, is considerable and the amount of work involved in securing even an approximate measure of accuracy is great. In view of these circumstances the remuneration suggested is absurd. I take this last opportunity of entering an emphatic protest against placing on the Statute
Book a Clause which violates all the rights of the individual and exceeds the just claims of the State.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: There are some general considerations which I wish to advance before saying au revoir to this Clause, hoping to see it in a changed condition on the Report stage, and I will endeavour to obey the Ruling of the Chair and not to indulge in vain repetitions such as the heathen use. [Interruption.] Throughout this discussion, I may point out to hon. Members opposite, we have strenuously avoided doing anything except bringing forward points of substance. We regard this Clause as mistaken in intention. A handful of people are guilty of evading their proper obligations to the Revenue, and it is right and proper that steps which are worth while from the point of view of the tax-paying community should be devised in order to bring those obligations home to them. As far as such a provision could be devised, it would have the support of everyone in this Committee. Yet I think it will be agreed that the moment you begin to devise elaborate machinery for dealing with a comparatively small percentage of cases, the desire of the administration to have a beautiful, big, perfect machine, runs away with the Government, and produces a Measure which may have the effect of catching the tax evader—though that is not admitted in the case of this Clause—but which imposes hardship on those who are not trying to evade taxation and on the business community by whose co-operation taxes have to be collected. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) with great skill introduced a Latin quotation earlier in this debate, and I wish to give one which seems to me to typify this Clause:

Saepe Diespiter neglectus incesto addidit integrum.

That quotation, I quite understand, will be readily appreciated by hon. Members, but I venture to give as a rendering of it; that the Inland Revenue, being cheated by one or two people, puts a burden on a lot of innocent people as well. That may be taken as an almost exact translation provided that we regard the Inland Revenue as an all-embracing Providence which makes us do things whether we like to do them or not.
The Clause has already been altered a great deal. Out of 26 lines, 10 or 11 have been altered, and in many respects it has been made better, but, even as it stands it is an improper Clause. In the first place, it does not really affect the person who means to get round the Revenue. He can still do so, and not only is that the case, but in endeavouring to get at him, by means of this elaborate machinery, the Clause goes far beyond the object for which we were told it was introduced. It would have been simple to have accomplished what was said to be the object of the Clause by the extension to debentures and statutory companies of those powers at present possessed with regard to other bodies. Instead of doing so, the Clause introduces something which is quite inquisitorial and, at the same time, it is framed in language which is liable to lead to litigation.

There are points in regard to which, admittedly, the Clause needs to be amended and some of those points have not even been discussed. There was an Amendment which was not moved, because when we reached it the hon. Member in whose name it stood was not here. The Amendment was, in page 16, line 16, at the end, to add the words:
Provided always such notice shall not be served in any case where the information sought can be obtained by any member of the public.
That was a good and reasonable Amendment, which might be considered on the Report stage. The next point about which the President of the Board of Trade would agree if he were here—as he is now about and in the waking world—is in regard to the question of the banks where they have issued certificates. That point has not been properly considered, and it is not clear whether they will be brought within the ambit of this Clause. They should be excluded from it. Then we have had no answer from the Chancellor or the Financial Secretary as to how far the proposed payment is a reasonable one. It has been made abundantly clear in the criticisms directed to that part of the Clause that the intricacy of the work and the amount of labour which may be involved in producing a great deal of the information will not be adequately paid for, and that five shillings is a ludicrous sum as a decent quid pro quo
for some of the information which may be required.

Another point which has not been discussed is the way in which the Clause has the tendency of some Clauses which emanate from the opposite side, of making things extraordinarily easy for administration by a public department, and making them extraordinarily difficult for the ordinary company. A notice under this Clause may be sent by post, when it is obvious that it ought to be sent by registered post. I ask the Committee to mark that, whereas the dropping of a notice into the ordinary post is considered to be enough by a department, which thereby may impose an onerous duty on a public company, yet if the company in return does not actually deliver with all formality the information required in return, it is to be subjected to a succession of possible pains and penalties. That is the nature of the

Clause which we have been discussing through these long hours. It is one of those mistaken kinds of legislation which are only too apt to creep in. It would not have taken so long had it not been such a faulty and bad Clause from the beginning, and points that have been brought before the Chancellor have been points of substance which the Chair naturally felt could not be passed over in the selection of proper Amendments to be discussed. The Clause has been half amended, but nothing probably could cure its intrinsic faults. We trust, however, that when it comes back on Report, some of the glaring mistakes may be rectified.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 222; Noes, 80.

Division No. 373.]
AYES.
[11.6 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Dickson, T.
Johnston, Thomas


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Dukes, C.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Ede, James Chuter
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Edmunds, J. E.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty
Kelly, W. T.


Alpass, J. H.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Kennedy, Thomas


Ammon, Charles George
Elmley, Viscount
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Arnott, John
Foot, Isaac
Kinley, J.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Forgan, Dr. Robert
Kirkwood, D.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Freeman, Peter
Knight, Holford


Barnes, Alfred John
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lang, Gordon


Batey, Joseph
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Gibbins, Joseph
Lathan, G.


Bellamy, Albert
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Gill, T. H.
Law, A. (Rosendale)


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)
Glassey, A. E.
Lawrence, Susan


Benson, G.
Gossling, A. G.
Lawson, John James


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Gould, F.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)


Blindell, James
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Gray, Milner
Lees, J.


Bowen, J. W.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lindley, Fred W.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Groves, Thomas E.
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Brooke, W.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Logan, David Gilbert


Brothers, M.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Longbottom, A. W.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Longden, F.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Lunn, William


Buchanan, G.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Burgess, F. G.
Harris, Percy A.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Haycock, A. W.
McElwee, A.


Chater, Daniel
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
McEntee, V. L.


Church, Major A. G.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)
McShane, John James


Clarke, J. S.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Mansfield, W.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
March, S.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Herriotts, J.
Marcus, M.


Compton, Joseph
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Marley, J.


Cove, William G.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Marshall, Fred


Daggar, George
Hollins, A.
Mathers, George


Dallas, George
Hopkin, Daniel
Messer, Fred


Dalton, Hugh
Horrabin, J. F.
Middleton, G.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Mills, J. E.


Day, Harry
Isaacs, George
Montague, Frederick


Denman, Hon. R. D.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Morley, Ralph


Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Thorne, W. (West Ham Plaistow)


Mort, D. L.
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Tillett, Ben


Moses, J. J. H.
Sanders, W. S.
Tinker, John Joseph


Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Sawyer, G. F.
Tout, W. J.


Muff, G.
Scurr, John
Townend, A. E.


Murnin, Hugh
Sexton, James
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Shield, George William
Vaughan, D. J.


Noel Baker, P. J.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wallace, H. W.


Oldfield, J. R.
Shillaker, J. F.
Watkins, F. C.


Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Simmons, C. J.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Sinkinson, George
Wellock, Wilfred


Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Sitch, Charles H.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Palin, John Henry
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Palmer, E. T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
West, F. R.


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Westwood, Joseph


Perry, S. F.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
White, H. G.


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Phillips, Dr. Marion
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Potts, John S.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Price, M. P.
Snell, Harry
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Quibell, D. J. K.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Raynes, W. R.
Sorensen, R.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Stamford, Thomas W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Ritson, J.
Stephen, Campbell
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Romeril, H. G.
Strauss, G. R.
Wise, E. F.


Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)



Rowson, Guy
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Hayes and Mr. Paling.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Purbrick, R.


Albery, Irving James
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Ramsbotham, H.


Atholl, Duchess of
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Beaumont, M. W.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Berry, Sir George
Haslam, Henry C.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Iveagh, Countess of
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Bracken, B.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Skelton, A. N.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Briscoe, Richard George
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Smithers, Waldron


Buchan, John
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Colville, Major D. J.
Long, Major Eric
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Tinne, J. A.


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Ferguson, Sir John
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fielden, E. B.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
O'Connor, T. J.



Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Peake, Capt. Osbert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.-


Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Captain Sir George Bowyer and


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Major the Marquess of Titchfield.

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 222; Noes, 90.

Division No. 374.]
AYES.
[11.15 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)
Caine, Derwent Hall-


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Benson, G.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Chater, Daniel


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Church, Major A. G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Clarke, J. S.


Alpass, J. H.
Bowen, J. W.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.


Ammon, Charles George
Broad, Francis Alfred
Cocks, Frederick Seymour


Arnott, John
Brockway, A. Fenner
Compton, Joseph


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Brooke, W.
Cove, William G.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Brothers, M.
Daggar, George


Barnes, Alfred John
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Dallas, George


Batey, Joseph
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Dalton, Hugh


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Buchanan, G.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Bellamy, Albert
Burgess, F. G.
Day, Harry


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Dickson, T.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Dukes, C.
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Ede, James Chuter
Lawrence, Susan
Sanders, W. S.


Edmunds, J. E.
Lawson, John James
Sawyer, G. F.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Scurr, John


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Sexton, James


Egan, W. H.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Elmley, Viscount
Lees, J.
Shield, George William


Foot, Isaac
Lindley, Fred W.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Forgan, Dr. Robert
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Shillaker, J. F.


Freeman, Peter
Logan, David Gilbert
Simmons, C. J.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Longbottom, A. W.
Sinkinson, George


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Longden, F.
Sitch, Charles H.


Gibbins, Joseph
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Lunn, William
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Gill, T. H.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Glassey, A. E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Gossling, A. G.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Gould, F.
McElwee, A.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
McShane, John James
Snell, Harry


Gray, Milner
Mansfield, W.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
March, S.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Marcus, M.
Sorensen, R.


Groves, Thomas E.
Marley, J.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Marshall, Fred
Stephen, Campbell


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Mathers, George
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Messer, Fred
Strauss, G. R.


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Middleton, G.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Mills, J. E.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Milner, Major J.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Harris, Percy A.
Montague, Frederick
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Morley, Ralph
Tillett, Ben


Haycock, A. W.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Tinker, John Joseph


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Mort, D. L.
Tout, W. J.


Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)
Moses, J. J. H.
Townend, A. E.


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Muff, G.
Vaughan, D. J.


Herriotts, J.
Murnin, Hugh
Wallace, H. W.


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Watkins, F. C.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hollins, A.
Oldfield, J. R.
Wellock, Wilfred


Hopkin, Daniel
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Horrabin, J. F.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Palin, John Henry
West, F. R.


Isaacs, George
Palmer, E. T.
Westwood, Joseph


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
White, H. G.


Johnston, Thomas
Perry, S. F.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Potts, John S.
Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Kelly, W. T.
Price, M. P.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Kennedy, Thomas
Quibell, D. J. K.
Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Kenworthy Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Raynes, W. R.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Kinley, J.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Kirkwood, D.
Ritson, J.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Knight, Holford
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Wise, E. F.


Lang, Gordon
Romeril, H. G.



Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.-


Lathan, G.
Rowson, Guy
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Paling.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Albery, Irving James
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Atholl, Duchess of
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Ferguson, Sir John
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Beaumont, M. W.
Fielden, E. B.
Long, Major Eric


Berry, Sir George
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Margesson, Captain H. D.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Blindell, James
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Bracken, B.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Briscoe, Richard George
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
O'Connor, T. J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Buchan, John
Haslam, Henry C.
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Colfox, Major William Philip
Iveagh, Countess of
Purbrick, R.


Colville, Major D. J.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Ramsbotham, H.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)




Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Smithers, Waldron
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Wells, Sydney R.


Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Skelton, A. N.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)



Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Tinne, J. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Captain Sir George Bowyer and




Major The Marquess of Titchfield.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
Once more I invite the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state on behalf of the Government what course they wish to pursue. The right hon. Gentleman has had his way. He has held the Committee strictly to business for one of the longest sittings that I can remember in recent times and I do not think that he can feel altogether satisfied with the result. There are much better ways of dealing with a powerful Opposition, almost equal numerically to the Government in power. The right hon. Gentleman ought to jettison without hesitation a large number of the Clauses which have been thrust into the Bill on Departmental grounds and which add to our burden at a time when the congestion of Parliament is increasing with extraordinary rapidity, and he ought at the same time, not merely on small matters but on large matters, so long as they do not imperil the general structure of the Budget, to respect the wishes, even if he does not share them, of those who are his fellow Members. The Government in its position as a minority Government, the remonstrances which have been addressed to him from the Liberal party—all these matters should induce the right hon. Gentleman to desire to come to an arrangement. It is really dreadful to go on wearing the Committee out by a species of physical torment. Obviously this is not the way in which to treat the grave problems of the State. The right hon. Gentleman has not been fighting for any money at all. The last Clause undoubtedly raised a great many disagreeable points of controversy, but one thing we offered as soon as we realised exactly what the character of the Clause was, and that was to make it perfectly certain that he could find out and hunt down the tax evader. We were ready to give him all that power in the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Nottingham (Mr.
Birkett) which in his absence was so admirably presented by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan). All this has taken place because the right hon. Gentleman has been fighting, not for revenue, not for the purpose of detecting and putting a stop to improper tax evasion, but simply in order that what he chooses to put into the Finance Bill shall be rammed through ipso facto, whatever the cost to the convenience of the Committee or to the convenience of the party and to the Government of which he is a prominent feature, if not indeed on all occasions a bright ornament. [Interruption.] I am not quite as bright as I should have been if I had had a proper night's sleep. Far worse than a private matter in Opposition is the spectacle of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, already late for his Cabinet meeting, if that has not been put off, simply because he has kept us up all through the night, trying to show that he is the master. He is not the master. This House is a difficult place for any man to try to rule by the use of a majority and the Closure and stern and harsh measures. No doubt Oppositions are sometimes very provoking, but it often happens that, if they are met in a reasonable spirit, and if parts of the Bill which are not really necessary for the finance of the year are freely discarded, and parts which are not necessary for the prevention of evasion are stated in a form acceptable to the Committee, much more rapid progress is made. I make the Motion in order to enable the right hon. Gentleman to inform us what the Government proposes.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The party opposite might have had the pleasure, which they appear to be anticipating with a great deal of glee., of hearing me four hours ago if the right hon. Gentleman had on that occasion addressed his question to me in terms as courteous as those he has now used. I had intended, when he last moved a Motion of this character, to reply
at once and respond to his appeal, if it had not been for the last two or three concluding sentences, which were characterised by the insolence and offensiveness of which the right hon. Gentleman is an incomparable master. It was quite impossible for me, after what he said, to take any other course than the one I adopted, and that was to refuse to comply with a request so insolently made. I was charged by the right hon. Gentleman repeatedly, and by other members of his party, with treating the House of Commons with contempt. I have neither treated the House of Commons with contempt nor have I consciously treated the Opposition with contempt. On the contrary, I have done my very best to hide it. The right hon. Gentleman may rest assured that while I recognise that the Opposition has certain rights—rights which should be respected so long as they are not abused—it is no part of the rights of the Opposition to try to dictate to the Government, as the right hon. Gentleman attempted to do just now, as to what we should put into a Bill, or at their dictation be called upon to take out Clauses in a Bill which do not meet with their approval. The right hon. Gentleman definitely demanded that certain Clauses should be taken out. They would be open to debate in the House, and I should be, as I have been during this long sitting, always open to consider favourably the case that is put up. Members of the Front Bench opposite have stated repeatedly during the last two or three hours that the Clause which has been occupying us for the last 12 hours has been in a large measure transformed, and, mark you, transformed by words and Amendments which were proposed by myself or my colleagues.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: After pressure.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Not at all. The right hon. Gentleman has not been present. I suppose he runs away so that he may live to fight later in the day. What are we going to do now? [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on!"] If the right hon. Gentleman opposite will address the same question to me in an hour I will tell him, and my reply then will be largely determined by the progress made within the hour.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: We have listened to a speech from the Chancellor of the Exchequer which I think, in its tone and temper, stands alone in the records of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to tell us that he has tried—and I have to add, unsuccessfully—to hide his contempt for the Opposition. He cannot treat the Opposition with contempt without reflecting on the House of Commons, of which he is a Member, and which, for its misfortune and the slower progress of public business, he has been leading for the last 20 hours. I think it is time that the Chancellor of the Exchequer invited the Prime Minister, who is Leader of the House, to come and take charge of the debate. He is, after all, Leader of the House, and on him rests the heaviest responsibility for the maintenance of its dignity and the preservation of those good feelings between side and side, which are generally observed, even in the midst of the warmest controversies, and upon the maintenance of which the smooth and successful working of our Parliamentary institutions depends. The right hon. Gentleman, in his first sentence, explained that he had kept the House sitting for the last four hours out of temper. My right hon. Friend, it appears, after a prolonged sitting, used some language which offended the delicate susceptibilities of the right hon. Gentleman, who is not himself accustomed to be so careful of the susceptibilities of others. He has always been ready to impugn the motives of others and to condemn their procedure, their conduct and their character, but because, forsooth, same phrase of my right hon. Friend stuck in his throat, therefore 300 gentlemen of this House of Commons are to be kept sitting all night, not to do business, but to give satisfaction to the injured susceptibilities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer!
The right hon. Gentleman is not serving the interests of the House or of the Government or of the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where were you?"] Hon. Gentlemen inquire where I was. I am ready to tell them. I was where they would all have wished to have been and where they would have been comfortably but for the temper displayed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. [Interruption.] All these interruptions are but the echo of another pretention of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer. He is not only to say how long this House as a whole is to be kept sitting in order that he may recover his temper and find a moment when he can forget the phrase to which he had taken exception, but he is to dictate to the Opposition which of them shall sit up with him and to reproach any of them who choose to seek refreshment in their own homes. The right hon. Gentleman entirely misconceives his position. No Minister, however powerful or autocratically disposed, will ever succeed in driving this House. You have got to persuade it, and that is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not try to do. He thinks that having a majority he can override the Opposition and that it is for him to decide what information the House shall ask for, what information it shall receive, what subjects are worthy of discussion, what phrases are permissible in debate., and what is fair comment and what is not. The right hon. Gentleman is making himself and the Committee altogether ridiculous, and I ask that he shall send for the Leader of the House, to whose services, in the face of the scandalous position the right hon. Gentleman has taken up, we are entitled.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I should like to add from the back benches a few arguments in favour of sending for the Leader of the House. We, in the agricultural districts, are very anxious, indeed, about unemployment, and if the House continues to sit until 3 o'clock we shall be deprived of this afternoon's discussions and of any opportunity this week of debating unemployment in this House. Does the Government wish to shirk the unemployment issue? If it does, the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a very sure indication of what is working in the minds of the Government. It shows that they cannot face an unemployment debate this afternoon. I have studied the action of the Government, and to my mind they are doing all they can to shirk another unemployment debate. If the Government force us to go on sitting until 3 o'clock, it will create a situation which will react against the Government because we shall be able to go down and say that the Government have shirked another unemployment debate. [Interruption.] The Leader of the House would to-day have the first
opportunity, as representing the Government, of——

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Question is that I do report Progress and ask leave to sit again. The hon. and gallant Member must give reasons for that.

Earl WINTERTON: On a point of Order. Might I ask if it would not be easier for my hon. and gallant Friend to conduct the debate if he was not subjected to constant and impertinent interruptions? And will you give me an answer to my point of Order?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord will permit me to rule the Committee.

Earl WINTERTON: On a point of Order. Might I respectfully ask if you will proceed to do it?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is not the first time that the Noble Lord has been deliberately offensive to the Chair. While I am always willing to do my best for every Member of this House, I cannot allow the Noble Lord or any other Member to treat the Chair with disrespect.

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw !

Earl WINTERTON: If I said anything which you thought improper, I should be very glad to withdraw it, but might I appeal to you, as an old Member of the House, to keep some order for my hon. and gallant Friend?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The House has behaved much more disorderly than during the present moment on many occasions. As to the imputation of the Noble Lord that I am not doing my duty, I will not allow him or anyone else to impute any such thing.

Earl WINTERTON: I unreservedly withdraw any imputation which, in the heat of the moment, I may have made on the Chair. May I once again appeal to you, as an old Member of the House, to keep order?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord is adding insult to injury.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I was suggesting, when the interruption took place, that the Leader of the House should be sent for, because it is not fair that he should be deprived of the oppor-
tunity of placing his unemployment policy before the House. I beg the Government to accept the Motion to report Progress, because to-day is the first opportunity that the Prime Minister has, as the man responsible for the Government's unemployment programme, of placing it before the House.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I do not address the Committee, I hope, in any controversial spirit. I shall not refer in any way to the behaviour, good or bad, of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Many of us on this side must at any rate have admired his endurance through the whole of this night, but I have a real grievance to put before him. Whoever has caused this long sitting, I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that it is an absolute scandal that the Committee, in its present tired state, should be called upon to discuss these complicated Clauses relating to land valuation in London. The whole of the system of Income Tax valuation in London is going to be changed. There are going to be new valuations throughout, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as is well known, is going to raise enormous revenue by these new valuations. We have, therefore, a perfect right to discuss the matter from beginning to end, and to discuss it with minds that are fresh. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider what those who really know what is at stake in this matter will think, when they realise that one of the most lucrative parts of his whole Budget is being discussed at this hour.
I appeal to him, whoever is right, however many words of insult he may have received form the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer—personally, I was not here when any such remarks were made, but if they were, I would ask him to put that on one side, for once to be magnanimous, and to see that this very difficult question is discussed when the mind of the Committee is fresh. I have tried to make this speech ever since 4 o'clock in the morning, and I thank you, Mr. Dunnico, for calling me now. I think the whole country will agree that it is a scandal to discuss such a complex matter at this hour, and, as a new Member and a back bencher, I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider his decision.

Mr. ALBERY: As one of those who have sat here for the best part of 20 hours, I think I have some right to say a few words on this Motion to report Progress, which I support as a private back bench Member. Throughout this debate we have been treated without the slightest consideration of any kind. None of us can make any complaint, and I personally make no complaint, as to any hours during which we may be asked to sit. We have to put the business of this House before any other business, and it is my duty, and I am willing, to remain here as long as the Chancellor of the Exchequer or any other Leader of the House may decide; but, on the other hand, there is some consideration which a Leader of the House can show to private Members. Many of us have other affairs to attend to, and it would be a matter of great convenience if we could know what the Chancellor's intentions are. It would have been a matter of great convenience to us earlier in the debate if he had told us what his intentions were and given us some idea as to how long this debate was to continue. Even now, at this late hour, it would be a matter of some convenience to many of us to know how long he desires the debate to continue, as many of us have appointments and other relationships to consider.

Commander SOUTHBY: As a back bench Member who has been present during the whole time of the sitting, perhaps I might be allowed to add my voice to those which have been raised on this side in support of the Motion to report Progress. The whole night through, the sitting has been marked by very great good humour and friendliness on all sides, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery) is hardly fair to the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he says that it would have been convenient if we had known what his intentions were, because it is my recollection that the right hon. Gentleman was quite plain in stating his intentions at an early hour yesterday evening, when he said that the Committee would sit until Clause 27 had been taken.

Mr. ALBERY: My hon. and gallant Friend says that the Chancellor said that he would sit until Clause 27 had been
taken, but judging by the progress which has been made up to the present——[Interruption].

12 noon.

Commander SOUTHBY: I understood that it was the right hon. Gentleman's intention to sit until Clause 27 had been taken. It is obvious that the debate has not been marked by any deliberate obstruction. We have asked on this side for information from the right hon. Gentleman, from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and from the Attorney-General, and I submit that the progress of the debate would have been expedited considerably if we had received, I will not say courteous information, but any information at all from those Ministers. Although the Chancellor of the Exchequer may wish to go on until Clause 27 has been taken, he must see that the experience of the debate during the night has proved the impossibility of doing so if proper justice is to be done to the Bill. Therefore, I join my voice to that of my right hon. Friend who proposed the Motion in asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would state whether it is still his intention to go on until Clause 27 has been taken, or whether he does not now realise that the interests of the country and of this Committee would be best served by adjourning now. It is obvious that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has himself suffered considerable inconvenience, and I am sure that he would be the first to admit that this long sitting has tried him very highly. It is a pity that the only remarks we have heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been to move, "That the Question be now put," or to make a speech which only added oil to the flames.

Major COLVILLE: There is one point I desire to raise. If we pass from this Clause and get on to Clauses 19 and 20 we open up the question of the collection of Income Tax, which involves matters of great importance and upon which we shall no doubt have a prolonged discussion. The Chancellor should remember that there is a debate of the first magnitude in the House this afternoon. If the Government desire to have a debate on the subject of unemployment it would be for the convenience of all concerned
to accept the Motion to report Progress and allow hon. Members two or three hours interval before the House assembles. If the Motion is not accepted it will be quite clear that the Government wish to avoid a debate on the question of their lamentable failure to deal with the unemployment problem.

HON. MEMBERS: Divide !

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I have listened to a considerable part of the debate during the last few hours and I confess that I was rather amazed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's recent utterance. He appealed to us to give him an hour in which to consider whether we should go on or not. About 40 minutes of that hour has passed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Wasted."] I may not have timed myself exactly, and if so I hope the right hon. Gentleman will excuse me. I do not mean any discourtesy to him. It is one of those lapses to which human beings are always liable. On the matter that the Committee report Progress, we have heard two admirable speeches from right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench giving excellent reasons why the debate should be adjourned. Indeed, the whole of the debate yesterday and last evening, and during the night and this morning, has been really excellent on this side of the Committee, but, unfortunately, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been amazingly weak in his replies and I am almost tempted to give reasons on his behalf why we should not report Progress.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member would not be in order.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Do I understand that it would be perfectly in order for me to give reasons why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should report Progress?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must give reasons why the Chairman should report Progress, not reasons why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not report Progress.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Is it not in order for any hon. Member of any party to argue for or against the Motion to report Progress?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must give reasons why I should or should not report Progress and not reasons for the conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I submit with great respect, that when a question is put from the Chair it is within the right of any hon. Member who is called by you to speak for or against the proposition, and that the attitude which be shall take on any question put from the Chair cannot be dictated by the place he happens to occupy in the House. It sometimes happens that hon. Members sitting on the same side of the House take a different view of a particular Motion. There may be occasions on which, for instance, my right hon. Friend the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer would argue in favour of a proposition which I should oppose. I feel confident that you do not intend to lay it down that if a Motion is made from this side of the House that no Member may speak from this side of the House unless he is prepared to support it.

The CHAIRMAN: Apparently I have been misunderstood. I ruled that the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) is entitled to speak to the Motion, but he is not entitled to put himself in the place of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, otherwise we might go right round the Committee.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I was not putting myself in the shoes of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because I should inadequately fill them in certain respects. I was trying to give reasons why we should not report Progress at the present moment, and I gather that I should be in order in giving reasons for or against the Motion. I do not think we are necessarily best advised to report Progress.

Mr. SEXTON: On a point of Order. Is there any method of procedure which will save the Committee from this terrible infliction?

Mr. SKELTON: On a point of Order——

HON. MEMBERS: Divide !

Mr. CHURCHILL: On a point of Order——

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) has been long enough in the House to know that he must resume his seat when I am on my feet.

Mr. SKELTON: I beg pardon. The point of Order I want to ask is whether it is in order for an hon. Member to be described by another hon. Member as a "terrible infliction."

HON. MEMBERS: Yes!

The CHAIRMAN: I do not see anything wrong in the description.

Mr. CHURCHILL: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who I believe is anxious to address the Committee as the hour has practically gone, whether he will give us some indication of what he has decided to do?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Torquay is at the moment in possession of the Floor of the House.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Let me first of all thank the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) for his short interruption. He has given me a splendid advertisement. I was sent here by my constituents to make myself as objectionable as I can to the Government, and I am doing so. I am only sorry that I cannot get such fulsome praise from the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, although I still have hopes in that direction. I am afraid I have been interrupted in giving my reasons why we should not report Progress, but I will endeavour to make them as continuous in character as I can. My reasons are these. We have dealt with two highly interesting and technical Clauses and we have to consider whether we are really capable at the moment of dealing with the next few Clauses in the Bill. I believe we might have got to the end of Clause 19, and but for the interruption of the hon. Member for St. Helens the further three Clauses. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been able to get these three Clauses we might quite reasonably have reported Progress. There is one reason why I do not think we ought to report Progress at this time. It does not yet appear to have struck the majority of Members of the Com-
mittee that it is quite conceivable—although I do not wish to draw attention to the misfortunes of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this debate—that these Budget debates may not be graced with his presence in the future. I have noticed for a considerable time past, and we have had examples of it quite recently, that on certain occasions certain Members suddenly disappear from the Front Bench opposite to another place——

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must confine himself to the Motion before the Committee.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I was going to give reasons why I am in favour of continuing to sit as long as possible. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide !"] I have many reasons as to why we ought not to report Progress, but I say, quite frankly, that unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer can give reasons for asking us to continue this sitting—[Interruption.]

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member who whistles must know that it is out of order to do so.

Mr. MILLS: If whistling is considered an infliction, what is the speech of the hon. Member opposite considered?

The CHAIRMAN: I have ruled that whistling is out of order. Whistling has been taking place pretty often during the night, and I warn hon. Members that it must not continue. I must ask hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to refrain from interruptions, and to allow the speaker who is in possession of the Committee to proceed.

Mr. CHURCHILL: If you will permit me to suggest it, Sir, you should ask the gentleman who whistles to own up like a man?

Mr. MUFF rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but the CHAIRMAN withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. BECKETT: On a point of Order. May I call your attention to the fact that before the whistling started, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) was repeatedly shouting out interruptions in a very loud voice.

The CHAIRMAN: I wish it were the case that only one or two hon. Members made these interruptions, but, even if it be true that one hon. Member was making an interruption, that is no excuse for the hon. Member who was whistling.

Mr. HAYCOCK: Ought not the speech to which we have been listening to be set to music?

Mr. C. WILLIAMS rose——[Interruption]

The CHAIRMAN: I must confess that I did not see the hon. Member who was responsible for that interruption, but if I did I should ask him to leave the Chamber.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Are we to understand that these grown-up Members of Parliament are afraid—[Interruptions.]

The CHAIRMAN: I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will cease to interrupt and will allow the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. Williams) to continue his speech.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I feel sure that the Committee will sympathise with me on the interruptions to which I have been subjected. As a result I am not sure that I have not accidentally left out large parts of my speech. But I promised the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, as far as was humanly possible, I would try to finish at the end of the hour, and I propose to do so, because I think that the right hon. Gentleman is dying to make an announcement to the Committee, and judging by certain signs and symbols which we have seen, that announcement may be of a hopeful character. Although I should be the last person to wish to delay progress, and although I would like to support the Chancellor of the Exchequer in proposing that we should continue our work, I think it must be clear—[Interruption.] The continuous interruption which we have had for the last 20 minutes while I have been endeavouring to speak makes it clear that whatever be the condition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the other Members on the Front Bench, at any rate the health of the supporters of the Government would be gravely endangered if they were asked to sit here another minute.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN rose——

Major COLFOX: On a point of Order. [Interruption.]

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. and gallant Member wishes to raise a point of Order, I must hear it.

Major COLFOX: I wish to ask your guidance on a rather interesting point. We all know that it is the custom for hon. Members to come down to the House in the morning and place cards with their names on the seats.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not so ignorant of the Rules of the House as all that. This is still the sitting which commenced yesterday.

Major COLFOX: Further on that point of Order. I should imagine that there may be hon. Members who are engaged on Committees upstairs, and I wish to know if they are not entitled before going to the Committees, to place cards on the benches.

The CHAIRMAN: Again I have to tell the hon. and gallant Member that he ought to have sufficient experience of the House to know that no question of that kind arises at this Sitting. That is a question which arises at the beginning of a Sitting. This Sitting has been continuous since yesterday and hon. Members who placed tickets on seats at the beginning of this Sitting, retain their rights.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I think it is quite clear that the Committee is in a mood which is not very suitable for turning its attention to serious matters. It has been said in the course of some of the speeches recently delivered, that we have prolonged this debate for the purpose of avoiding the Sitting of the House this afternoon in Committee of Supply, at which I understand the question of unemployment is to be raised. There is no foundation whatever for a statement or a supposition of that kind. I said 14 hours ago that I expected to make far greater progress than we have made with the Committee stage of the Finance Bill while enabling the Committee to rise at a fairly reasonable hour. However the Opposition decided otherwise, and the entire responsibility for the length of the sitting rests with them. I
suppose that they are proud of their performance. They have certainly not done much credit to themselves and they have not added to the prestige and dignity of Parliament. The main regret which I have is that the electors have not been spectators of these proceedings. The Government will not lose the Supply Day to-day, but I understand that if the House is to meet at the usual hour of a quarter to three o'clock, some time will be necessary in which to prepare the papers. It is necessary, I believe, that we should rise at once, if the House is to meet for a new sitting at a quarter to three o'clock, so that Members may be in possession of the usual Order Paper at that time. In these circumstances, I no longer persist in opposing the Motion to report Progress.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I had hoped when the right hon. Gentleman opened his remarks, that I should have been able to have made my last contribution to this debate by saying that nothing in the conduct of the debate became him so well as his ending of it. But the right hon. Gentleman continued to use a great many hard and highly controversial expressions about the conduct of the Opposition, for which they are quite ready to take full responsibility. But in view of the remarks which he has made, I am forced, in two or three sentences, to put it perfectly clearly on record that the right hon. Gentleman has been thoroughly beaten. He has been forced to eat his words. He told us last night that he was going to sit until Clause 27 had been passed. We told him quite plainly that it was impossible to accomplish even half that distance, but the right hon. Gentleman went on defying the Committee and to-day, on the 18th June, he has met his Waterloo.

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee proceeded to a Division——

Mr. PARKINSON and Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS were nominated Tellers for the Ayes, but there being no Members willing to act as Tellers for the Noes, the CHAIRMAN declared the Ayes had it.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr.
SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-four Minutes before One o'Clock p.m.